, , , , , , , ,
 
Westlaw Books Welcome
Citizens Court Watch !
Sovereign Unalienable Info.
Important Court Cases
Real Court Case's Now
Guestbook Sign In Log !
5 Disclaimer and Fair Use
Bad Judges And Courts !
Court System How Works
Radical Reference Info.
Words & Law Glossary !
Z Misc Information Etc.
42 USC 1983 A Lawsuits
5000 New Police Jobs ?
A Bomb 66 Yrs Later Info.
A Letter To NBA Owners
Abortion Facts And Info.
Abuse Of Court Powers
Accident/Hit and Run Etc.
Adopt A Kitten or Dog ?
Advanced Trial Handbook
Against Seizing Children
Aggravated Assault Etc.
Aiding & Abetting Info.
Aiding & Accessory Info.
Alcohol Crimes (DUI) Etc
Alcohol Crimes (DWI) Etc
Alcohol Getting Help Info.
Alienation Of Affection
Amerasian Children Info.
American Express Refund
Animal Cruelty & Rights
Apartment Rental Scams
Anamorphosis Pics Info.
Arrest Is It Legal Arrest ?
Arson and Fires Laws Info.
Assault and Battery Etc.
Asylum Canada’s  System
Attempt Crimes Laws Etc.
Attorney Client Privilege
Background Checks Info
Bankruptcy Options Info.
Beatings By Officers Info.
Bicycle Laws & Info. Etc.
Bigamy & Polygamy Laws
Bill Of Rights & Other ?
Bivens Action Lawsuits
Black Kittycat Law Books
Black Mail & How To Stop
Body of Missing People's
Breast Cancer Help Info.
 Brutality Excessive Force
Bribery Laws & Info. Etc.
Burglary Laws Info. Etc.
Cannibalism In The World
Case Numbering System
Censorship Rules Info. Etc.
Chesterfield Services Bad
Child Abandonment Etc.
Child Abuse Laws Info.
Children's Internet Act
Child Pornography Etc.
Child Support Laws Info.
Chinn, C. Bradley Bad J.
Christmas Peace Wish !
Citizens Court Watch !
Civil Forfeiture Laws Info.
Civil Rights Overview ?
Civil Rights Warning Etc.
Clear & Present Danger
Cohabitation Laws & Info.
Color of Law Abuses Etc.
Collateral Estoppel Info.
Common Law Info. Etc.
Complaints & Canons Etc.
Computer Crime &  Info.
Consortium, Loss Of Info.
Conspiracy Crime Info.
Constitution & Its Laws
Constitutional Law Info.
Contempt of Court Info.
Contempt of Cop Info.
Convicted Sex Offender
Cops Pulling You Over 4 ?
Copyright Patent Trade
COURT OF APPEALS III
Court System How Works
Court Forced Labor Info.
Couches 4 Rent Sex Info
Credit / Debit Card Fraud
Credit 4 Time Served ?
Crimes A-Z Get Help Now
Crimes Against Justice ?
Crimes Against A Person
Criminal Contempt Court
Criminal Investigations
Civil Contempt of Court
Crimes Against Children
Criminal Rights Violations
Cyber Bullying Info. Etc.
Cyber Crimes Laws & Info.
Date Rape Info.Sex Etc.
Dating Black Mail Info.
Dating and Sex Info. Etc.
Death and Dying Info.
Death Penalty Laws Info.
Defamation Libel Slander
Deflowered by Police Info.
Dim Witted Persons Etc.
Disability Rights & Laws
Disorderly Conduct Etc.
DISTRICT COURT INFO.
Disturbing the Peace Etc.
Do Not Call 911 Info. ?
Do Not Call 911 Dot Com
Dog and Animal Abuse
Dog/Animal Bites & Info.
D.V. & Animal Abuse Etc.
Domestic Violence Etc.
Double Jeopardy Laws
Drinking Water Safety ?
D-WBM Law Firm Info. ?
Driver New Pay By Miles
 D.V. Consortium Info. !
Drug Charges & Info.
Drug Cultivation Etc.
Drug Distribution Etc.
Drugs Getting Help Info.
Drug Manufacturing Etc.
Drug Possession Etc.
Drug Trafficking Etc.
DSHS & APS & Get Help
DUI and DWI Laws Etc.
DUI & DWI After Arrest ?
Easement Laws & Rights
E Bay & Craiglist Scams
E-Books Copyright Laws
Embezzlement Info. Etc.
Emergency Help Info.
Emergency Fire 911 Info.
Essays and Speeches
Expungement Laws Info.
Extortion Laws & Info.
Exemption From Laws
Exercise Your Rights Now.
False Advertising Laws
False Arrest Laws & Info
Feeding Homless Laws
Federal U.S Code & Laws
Federalism & Laws Info.
Feminism Laws & Info.
First Corinthians 7 Info.
First Date's Is It Safe ?
Fleecing of America !
Food Poisoning Info. Etc
Forgery Laws & Info. Etc.
Forced Guardianship Info.
Forced Labor & Its Laws
Forced Marriage Laws
Foster Care Laws & Info.
Fracking Regulations
Fraud Laws & Info. Etc.
Freedom Of Press Info.
Freedom of Speech Etc.
Friends Civil Rights Laws
Friend Of Court Brief
Funny To Scare Horses
Gangs Laws & Other Info.
Gang Rape Woman Laws
Gay Marriage Rights Etc.
Going Postal Get Help !
Glossary of Terms/ Words
Gonzaga Law School Etc
Good Samaritan Backfires
Grant Programs Info.
Guardian Ad Litem Info.
Guardianship Laws Info.
Guide To  File a Lawsuit
Gun Control Laws Etc.
Gun Rights In 4  U.S.A.
Guns Safety How To Info.
Habeas Corpus Laws Etc.
Harassment Laws & Info.
Hate Crimes Laws & Info.
Hearsay Evidence Case
Homeless Programs Etc.
Homicide Laws &  Info.
How To Bypass The Laws
How To Cook Babys Info
How To File a Lawsuit !
How to Self-Publish Book
How To Sue A Judge !
How The Courts Work
How The Courts Work ?
Human Trafficking Laws
Husband and Wife Laws
Hustler Mag v. Falwell
Identity Theft Info. Etc.
Indecent Exposure Etc.
Info. & Deaths Spokane
Injunction Rules & Laws
Insanity Defense Laws
Insurance Fraud Etc.
Intellectual Property Etc.
Intelligence Agency ?
Internet Laws Public Etc.
Internet Security Center
IRA Inheritance Laws
Jane Doe & John Doe Info.
Jaywalking Laws & Info.
Judical Conduct (CJC)
Judge Cozza, Salvatore F.
Judical Immunity Rules
Judical Lawsuits Case's
Judicial / Legal Corruption
Judicaial Misconduct Info.
Judical Picnic 9/11 Ethics
Judicial Review & Laws
Judicial Trust Fund Info.
Jurisdiction Laws & Info.
Jurisprudence & Laws
Jury Duty Welcome Info.
Juvenile Law & Info.
Kidnapping Laws & Info.
Law Enforcement  Powers
Laws Suits Filling Info.
Lawyer Discipline Info. !
Layman Law Firm PLLP
Layman Bible Laws Etc.
Legal Research Internet
Life at Conception Act
Lithium Batteries Danger
Loan Pay Off How To
Magna Charta 1215  Text
Magna Carta Legal Info.
Mail Fraud & Scams
Mail Order Brides Info.
Mandatory Reporters Etc.
Manslaughter Involuntary
Manslaughter Voluntary
Marijuana & Cannabis Laws
Marital Rape Is A Crime ?
Medical Marijuana Info.
Mental State/ Defendant
MerryHallowThanksMas !
Millennials Generation Y
Minor in Possession (MIP)
Miranda Rights Warnings
Miranda v. Arizona ?
Misc Facts & Info. Etc.
Misc Files & Laws & Info.
Money Laundering Etc.
Mormon Polygamy Info.
Most Important Info. Etc.
Motorcycle Accidents Etc.
Murder First Degree Etc.
Murder Second Degree Etc.
My Constitutional R. Watch
Aaron M. Naccarato Bad
Naked Children Laws
9TH CT CRT OF APPEALS
National Debt Figures US
No Contact Orders Info.
O'Connor, Kathleen M. B
Obscenity Laws & Info.
Open Container Law Etc.
Other Pink Thing ! 1973
Other White Meat/ Baby
Panhandler Ordinance
Pay Pal and Misc Scams
Pedestrian Accidents Etc.
Perjury In Court & Info.
Permanent Injunction Law
Pet Adopt & Laws Info.
Photography is Not Crime
Pharmaceutical Viagra !
Plea Bargains Laws/Info.
Pledge of Allegiance Etc.
Police Brutality &  Force
Police Crimes Info. Etc.
POLICE, FBI, CIA Info.
Police Misconduct & Info.
Police Misc Photo Files
Polyamory Dating Rules
Polyamory Relationship
Pornography Laws Info.
Premarital Agreements
Premarital Questions
Probable Cause Arrest ?
Probation Violation Info.
Process of Arrest Info.
Pornography Charges
Prisoner's Right's Info.
Property Crimes & Info.
Pro Se Litigant Info.
Pro-Se Rights Case Law
Pro-Se & Self-Help Info.
Prostitution Free/ Money
Publication Private Facts
Public Intoxication Info.
Pyramid Schemes Etc.
Racketeering/ RICO Etc.
Rape Of  Men & Women
Rapist and Sex Offenders
Red Light Cam. Tickets
ReElect Nobody Info.
Rental Deposit Fees Laws
Resisting Arrest Info.
Respect ALL Religions
Restoring Gun Rights
Retaliation After Crimes
Retaliation By Judges
Revenge Court Case's
Right to Counsel Laws
Robbery Crimes Etc.
Rockwood, Virginia B. Bad
Rules of Evidence & Info.
Rules of Evidence Etc.
Safe Haven Laws & Info.
Same Sex Marriage Info.
Scuba Diving Rapist Info
Scam's & Frauds Elderly
Search and Seizure Laws
Search Warrant Info. Etc.
Search Engines Helper
Search Engine Optimization
Secret Canon 3/2 Info.
Securities Fraud & Info.
Self Defence Laws Info.
Separation Agreement !
Seat Belt Laws & Info.
Sex Offender Registry
Sex & Am I Ready For ?
Sex Scam's Gift Cards
Sex Slave For Sale Ads
Sexual Abstinence Info.
Sexual Assault Laws Etc.
Sexual Orientation Info.
Sexual Predator Laws
Sex Crimes Laws & Info.
Sex Offenses & Laws
Sex Slave's For Sale Ads
Sexting Laws & Info. Etc.
Sexual Exploitation Info.
Sexual Slavery ? Laws
Shooting On Dick Spokane
Shoplifting Laws & Info.
Shower Safe & New Laws
Sit & Lie Down Ordinance
Fred Van Sickle + Fed. J.
SLAPP Statutes & Laws
Smoking Getting Help Info.
Sodomy & Gay Info.  Laws
Solicitation Laws & Info.
Someone Drugged ME !
Speech Ban For Life ?
Spokane Bad 4 Business
Spokane City Facts or ?
Spokane Code Enforcement
Spokane Dead Body Pics
Spokane Do Not Visit ?
Spokane Fire Dept. Bad
Spokane Internal Affairs
Spokane Local Killings
Spokane Marijuana Stores
Spokane Ombudsman Pr
Spokane Police Guild Bad
Spokane Police Very Bad
Spokane Prostitution Info.
Spokane Fireman Sex ?
Spokane Sex Clubs Info.
Spokane Stalker WoW
Spokane Unidentified Bodys
Standing Rules & Laws
Starting a Business Info.
Starting a New Website ?
Stalking & Forms of It ?
Stalkers + Traits of ?
Statute Of Limitations
Statutory Rape Laws Etc.
STD's & Other Diseases
Donald Sterling v NBA
Substantive Due Process
Sueing for Discrimination
Sue Without A Lawyer
Suing A Judges In Court
Suicide Get Help Now !
SUPERIOR COURT INFO.
Support for Hitler USA
Supremacy Clause Info.
SUPREME COURT WA
Surf The Web Safely Etc.
Tattoos and Branding !
Tax Evasion Laws Etc.
Telemarketing Scams Etc.
Terminology In The Laws
Theft / Larceny Info. Etc.
Traffic Laws & Tickets ?
Traffic Stops & Rights Info.
Transgender Bathroom Laws
Transgender People Info.
Transient Shelter Laws
Transvestite Laws & Info.
Trial Rights & Laws Etc.
Trust Laws & Court Rules
Unauthorized Practice Law
United Nations Laws Etc.
United States Constitution
U. S. Constitution Laws
U.S. Constitutional Law
Unlawful Vehicle Mod.
US  CT. EASTERN  WA.
US SUPREME COURT
Vaccine & Vaccination
Vagrancy Laws & Info.
Valentines Day Hearings
Valentines Day Stalker !
Vandalism Laws & Info.
Vehicle Searches & Info.
Violent Crime Control Act
Wa. State Constitution
Waiting for Rights Etc.
Wedding Day 11 12 13 14
Westlaw Arrest Story ?
Westlaw Arrest Tickets
Westlaw Books Come Out
Westlaw Books Dot Com
Westlaw Court Dockets
Westlaw Books Updates
W-Deposition Cindy Jones
W Stephanie Doe Call 4 Help
We The People Laws
White Collar Crime & Info.
White House Laws/ Bills
White, Richard B. Bad J.
Woman Raped By Law
Wire Fraud Laws Etc.
Yes We The People Info.
Yin and Yang Philosophy
Z  Words &  Glossary !
STILL WORKING ONE
STILL WORKING THREE
STILL WORKING  EIGHT
PAY PAL CODES
NEW WEB PAGES ONE
NEW WEB PAGES TWO
NEW WEB PAGES THREE
NEW WEB PAGES FOUR
NEW WEB PAGES FIVE
NEW WEB PAGES SIX
NEW WEB PAGES SEVEN
NEW WEB PAGES EIGHT
 
   
 


THIS IS A LISTED OF ALL THE COURT CASE'S SO FAR + IN SPOKANE, WA. U.S.A ALL CASE ARE JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE V/S RANDLES P. TOMPKINS + PRO-SE ! Denial of Due Process / Insufficiency Evidence / Right To Cross-Examine Witness THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 12-10-1948 IS VOID ! + COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID THAT JANE DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS !

YOU CAN READ ALL THE COURT HEARING BELOW + ON THIS PAGE RIGHT NOW!

All Case’s are Randles Tompkins V. Stephanie DOE / But (2)
Denial of Due Process /Insufficiency Evidence /Cross-Examine!

Wa. State Spokane /APS Case # 60932 / 3-21-05 2:26pm Closed

At this Time 11-02-2005 In Miss. S. DOE Life / She is Working                              Full Time / She Ask Me (Randles)To Marry Her & I Said (Yes)

Wa. State Spokane /APS Case #54686 /11-04-05 9:53am Closed

Wa.State Spokane/APS Case #70174 /11-09-05 10:33am Closed

Wa. State Spokane /APS Case #73600 / 2-13-06 4:54pm Closed

Sheriff Report Filed By Law/After Got Threatened to be Killed
By ? I Filed Report #06-45600 For Miss. S. DOE Filed 2-13-06

Dept of Health Wa. State / Case # 06-02-0108NA / Feb/27/ 2006
DISMISSED on Jan/27/2007 Criminal Case Is Over /The State
Said Case Closed Because All Statement Are Perjury /FALSE !

District Court Spokane / Case # 686281-DV / 2-28-06 Appealed

Superior Court in Spk. /Case # 06-2-01414-1 /3-30-06 Appealed

Court of Appeal Div-III Wa.Case # ? Filed Late 4-30-07 Closed

District Court Spokane /Case # CR0052967 / Criminal Stalking
Sheriff Filed on 4-17-06 // on Jan/18/2007 ! CASE DISMISSED

Superior Court in Spk. /Case # 08-1-02625-7/ 8-14-08 CLOSED

District Court Spokane /Case # 697086-AH/11-21-06 Moved To                      Superior Court Spk. /Case #06-2-05360-0 / 12/28/06 Dismissed

Superior Court in Spk./Case # 98-4-01002-1/12-04-08 Appealed

Court of Appeal Div-III Wa.Case # 27636-8-III 02-10-09 OPEN

Wa. State Spokane /APS Case # 73372 7/30/07 10:09am Closed

District Court Spokane / Case # 787861-DV / 8-23-07 Appealed

Superior Court in Spk. /Case # 07-2-04098-1/ 8-30-07 Appealed

Court of Appeal Div-III Wa.Case # 268586-III 2-5-08 Appealed

Supreme Ct./Temple of Justice/Case # 82129-1 This is Appealed

District Court Spokane / Case # 787861-DV / 8-18-09 Appealed

Superior Court in Spk. /Case # 09-2-03720-0/ 8-19-09 Appealed

Court of Appeal Div-III Wa. Case # 29145-6-III 6-16-10 OPEN

U.S. District Court Eastern D. Wa. / CV-07-195-FVS Appealed

9th Circuit Court of Appeals / Case # 09-35336 This Case Open

Wa. State Bar Ass./Case & File # 07-01362 / 09-10-07 Appealed

Supreme Temple of Justice /C. # 81209-8 & 82494-1 & 84697-9

ALL CASE ARE REAL COURT CASE'S IN SPOKANE, WA. USA & ALL NAME CHANGED BY THE COURT ORDER TO JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE ETC ETC. ! & REMEMBER NOT ALL JUDGES & COMM. ARE BAD & NOT ALL DISHONORABLE !

New District Court Spokane / Case # ? 000000 -DV / Started 11-01-2013 Appealed






DN7010PX JXF SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT PAGE: 1

03/22/2010 + 01:20 PM DEFENDANT CASE HISTORY
Defendant:  TOMPKINS, RANDLES PSYCHEDELIC IN 560 12176
True Name: TOMPKINS, RANDLES PSYCHEDELIC IN 560 12176                        Alias: NUTTER, RANDALL CRAIG 3 Cases 1 Alias

N Case LEA Ty Crt Loc Hearing Balance C CD W F 0 Vio Date Short Title  DV Jg
CR0052967 SPS CN SPD CL + 04/17/06 STALKING Y DO

A F00040081 SPP CN SPM CL * * + 07/23/90 FAIL TO APPER OR RESPOND N G
08-1-02625-7 S1 S32 CM + 08/14/08 NON-CHARGE N N
End of Defendant: Case History report for this person.

CONFIDENTIAL--NOT FOR RELEASE

03/22/2010 + 13:21:24 D01020MI Individual Order History (IOH)                            SPOKANE COUNTY DIST JXF 1 of 1
Case: CR0052967 SPS CN Csh: Pty: StID: D THOMK+RC449NT WA
Name: TOMPKINS, RANDLES PSYCHEDELIC Nm Cd: IN 560 12176
CONFIDENTIAL--NOT FOR RELEASE Print: N (Y/N)
Name: TOMPKINS, RANDLES PSYCHEDELIC Nm Cd: IN 560 12176
AKA's: NUTTER, RANDALL CRAIG 1 Aliases
Sel Exp Date Order Desc Status Decision Pty Case# LEA Ty Crt Loc

08 23 2099 PROTECTION Active RESTRAINS RSP 787861DV CV SPD

04 18 2008 NO CONTACT Termin RESTRAINS DEF CR0052967 SPS CN SPD
08 23 2007 DECREE W/PROTEC Expire RESTRAINS RSP 787861DV CV SPD
02 28 2007 DECREE W/PROTEC Expire RESTRAINS RSP 686281DV CV SPD
12 28 2006 TEMP PROTECTION Termin RESTRAINS RSP 062053600 S2 S32
12 12 2006 ANTI-HARASSMENT Termin RESTRAINS RSP 697086AH CV SPD
12 01 2006 ANTI-HARASSMENT Expire RESTRAINS RSP 697086AH CV SPD
02 28 2006 DECREE W/PROTEC Expire RESTRAINS RSP 686281DV CV SPD


CASE #  79-4-00754-6  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + GUARDIANSHIP CASES BOTH   FILED DATE + 05-31-1979 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. GUARDIANSHIP  MONTORING PROGRAM + FAILED TO WATCH THIS PERSON OR MONTOR ANY THING FROM 1983 TO 2006 + SEE CASE # 06-2-05360-0  SPOKANE !  

CASE #  85-3-00581-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPFATHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 03-08-1985 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

CASE #  91-3-00031-8  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 01-29-1991 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

CASE #  94-2-00985-5  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 02-23-1994 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

CASE #  96-2-03451-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 06-06-1996 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

CASE #  98-4-01002-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + GUARDIANSHIP ACTION CASE FILED DATE + 08-17-1998 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. GUARDIANSHIP  MONTORING PROGRAM + FAILED TO WATCH THIS PERSON ??

CASE #  98-2-05842-5  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + A Unlawful Harrassment Case FILED DATE + 09-09-1998 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

CASE #  01-2-05770-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 10-01-2001 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

APS CASE # 60932 + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + FILED DATE + 3-21-2005  2:26 pm + CASE CLOSED +Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. + GUARDIAN BLOCK CASE !

HOSPITAL DATES 11-03-2005 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21517588) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa.  THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

APS CASE # 54686 + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + FILED DATE +11-04-2005  9:53 pm + CASE CLOSED +Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. + GUARDIAN BLOCK CASE !

HOSPITAL DATES 11-05-2005 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE D000368340 ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

APS CASE # 70174 + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + FILED DATE +11-09-2005 10:33 pm + CASE CLOSED +Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. + GUARDIAN BLOCK CASE !

HOSPITAL DATES 11-15-2005 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21525298) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.
HOSPITAL DATES 11-17-2005 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES!  TO 11-29-2005 14 DAYS IN THE (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE  HELP ME RANDLES LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21526899) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID ! 

HOSPITAL DATES 1-06-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (V07165053) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

HOSPITAL DATES 2-13-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21581414) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

APS CASE # 73600 + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + FILED DATE + 2-13-2006  4:54 pm + CASE CLOSED +Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. + GUARDIAN BLOCK CASE !

Sheriff Report Filed By Wa. Law + After I Got Death Threatened to be Killed By ?   I FILED 2-13-2006  A REPORT # 06-45600 FOR JANE DOE & JOHN DOE + HELP ME !

CASE #  CR-0052967-DV  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STATE OF WASHINGTON ! FILED DATE + 04-18-2006 + In District Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane, Wa.

CASE # 98-4-01002-1 + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + LETTER WM. FRED ARONOW FILED DATE 4-24-2006 + COURT ORDERED FRED ARONOW  + NO CIVIL RIGHTS !

Dept of Health Wa.State / Case # 06-02-0108NA + FILED 2-27-2006 + CASE CLOSED DISMISSED ON 1-27-2007 + NO HEARING + Criminal & State Of Wa. CASE OVER ! Dept of Health Ruled + Jane Doe or John Doe + Filed False Reports & Perjudied Statement in Court + and Said Deputy Cindy North Jones + Filed False Reports !

CASE #  686281-DV    +  JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPFATHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 02-15-2006 + In District Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. THIS CASE IS APPEALED & FILED ON 03-30-2006 + In District Court Spokane, Wa.

CASE #  CR-0052967-DV  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STATE OF WASHINGTON ! FILED DATE + 04-18-2006 + In District Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

CASE #  06-2-01414-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 03-08-2006 + In Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. THIS CASE IS APPEALED I FILED TO LATE Court of Appeals Div-III Spokane, Wa.

CASE #  IO-5005286   + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 09-11-2006 + In Municipal Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

HOSPITAL DATES 9-21-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21719848) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

CASE #  IO-5138959   + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 03-08-2006 + In Municipal Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa.

APS CASE # ????? + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + FILED DATE + 12-27-2006  ? pm + CASE CLOSED +Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. + GUARDIAN BLOCK CASE !   

CASE #  787861-DV   + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 08-14-2007 + IN District Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. THIS CASE IS APPEALED & FILED ON 0?-??-2007 + In District Court Spokane, Wa. The Dishonorable Judge This Case Is + Judge C. Bradley Chinn + Dist. Ct. Comr.; Case Appealed 8-19-09 Again Before The ???- Honorable Kathleen M. O'Connor +

CASE #  07-2-04098-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP FILED DATE + 09-07-2007 + IN Superior Court  + Spokane County Of Spokane,Wa. THIS CASE IS APPEALED FILED ON 0?-??-2007 + In Superior Court Spokane, Wa. Honorable Judge Michael P. Price + Price Superior Court. J.; In Spokane County This Case Appealed To Court of Appeal Div-III Spk, Wa. + Case # 268586-III 2-5-08

CASE #  82129-1  + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + STEPMOTHER GUARDIANSHIP Act   Supreme Ct. / Temple of Justice /Case # 82129-1 This Case Closed

SPOKANE, WA. USA 99260 SHERIFF'S REPORT # IS 06-45600  OVER 100+ PAGES  & HEARING IS IN DISTRICT COURT # STALKING DV CR0052967 IN SPOKANE, WA. ADDRESS IS  1100 WEST MALLON AVE. SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260  U. S. A. 

Court Date is  4-18-2006  With JUDGE ANNETTE S. PLESE  (ASP) on Tape # FTR 3  & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & NO Public Defender Yet Need To Apply

MAY 01 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 
Court Date is  5-02-2006  With JUDGE ANNETTE S. PLESE  (ASP) on Tape # FTR 3  & the Prosecutor is ERIN CULVER & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ

MAY 08 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender  par a legal  Linda Hunter 

JUNE 06 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

JUNE 09 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

Court Date is  6-27-2006  With JUDGE ANNETTE S. PLESE  (ASP) on Tape # FTR 3  & the Prosecutor is SMITHSON & CULVER & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ

JUNE 30 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

JULY 05 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

JULY 14 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Jay Ames who is Lorenz ( Boss )

Court Date is  7-31-2006  With JUDGE ANNETTE S. PLESE  (ASP) on Tape # FTR ?   & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ

Court Date is  8-02-2006  With JUDGE BRADLEY C. CHINN  (CBC) on Tape # FTR 3   & Prosecutor is SMITHSON & MACDONALD Public Defender is ALISON McPEEK

Court Date is  8-02-2006  With JUDGE BRADLEY C. CHINN  (CBC) on Tape # FTR 3  

                         THE COURT:  Okay. Do I have Mr. Randles P.Tompkins

                          MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Tompkins did you give Jane Doe a Valentine's Day Card & a get well card or not ? 

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes your Honor, I did give Jane Doe 3 cards 2-06-06

                         THE COURT:  So how come you will not take the Plea Bargain ?

                         MR. TOMPKINS: Because Jane Doe called me for the date in the 1st place & going to church is Not A Crime or DV and sending my Girlfriend a Card is not a Crime and giving a get well & valentine's day cards are not stalking or DV at all.

                         THE COURT:  Do you understand you can go to jail for 1 year & $5,000 dollar fine. Mr. Tompkins for Stalking So how come you will not take the Plea Bargain ? 

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes Your Honor I understand this No Plea Bargain.

                         THE COURT:  I Order Mr. Randles Tompkins  To Be Evaluate and Report On Defendant's Mental State and He will not take the Plea Bargain. 

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor I understand This.

                         THE COURT:  Its Is So Ordered by RCW 10.77 Sanity Commission   SIGNED BY JUDGE / COMM. BRADLEY C. CHINN (CBC)  

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.      (End of hearing.)       ?? 

CASE # CR0052967 + STATE OF WASHINGTON Plaintiff Vs. RANDLES P. TOMPKINS, Defendant AGREED ORDER FOR RCW 10.77.060 SANITY COMMISSION, STAY ORDER AND REPORT TO THE COURT (Clerk's Action Required) (OR)

MOTION This matter came before the undersigned Judge on the motion of the attorney for Randles P. Tompkins, for the appointment of a Sanity Commission to Evaluate and Report On Defendant's Mental State. This motion is based upon RCW 10.77 at esq, the records and files herein, and the incorporated Certificate of ALISON A. MCPEEK.

CERTIFICATE ALISON A. MCPEEK, WSBA # 34179 States: I am the Attorney for Randles P. Tompkins and as such am familiar with the files, the Defendant and the circumstances of this case. I further assert thatI have a good faith belief that there is reason to doubt the Defendant's fitness to proceed; and it appears that as a result of mental disease or defect Defendant is incapable of aiding counsel in his/her own defence or understanding the proceedings against him/her.

(XXX) I have a good faith belief that the Defendant may be developmentally disabled.

(XXX) I have a good faith belief that, on the date of the alleged incident, because of a mental disease or defect Defendant was incapable of knowing right from wrong, or of appreciating the nature and quality of his/her acts.

Pursuant to RCW 9A72.085 and Washington State Rules of Court 13. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the forgoing is true and correct. Dated 8/02/2006 Place Spokane, Wa. Signed by ALISON A. MCPEEK, WSBA # 34179 Attorney of Law

DONE IN OPEN COURT THIS 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2006 SIGNED BY JUDGE / COMM. BRADLEY C. CHINN (CBC)  In Spokane, Wa. 99260

COURT TAKE MY WATER FRONT HOME ON AUG. 15, 2006 + A 1970 FOUR SEASON 12/48 SERIAL # OW862 & PARCEL # 99.003941 + IAM NOW HOMELESS THIS DAY + BY JUDGE / COMM. BRADLEY C. CHINN (CBC) + OFF THE STREET ON 12/12/2006


COURT TAKE MY 2003 HARLEY DAVISON 883 ON NOV. 28 , 2006 + BY JUDGE / COMM. BRADLEY C. CHINN (CBC) AND I LOST ALL BANK ACCT. NOV. 29 / 2006

Court Date is  8-25-2006  With JUDGE BRADLEY C. CHINN  (CBC) on Tape # FTR 3  & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ & Also with  Public Defender ALISON McPEEK

HOSPITAL DATES 9-21-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE Z21719848 ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

OCT 20 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Alison McPeek wsba # 34179

HOSPITAL DATES 10-25-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE V000180456 ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID + JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.      
OCT 26 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

Court Date is 10-27-2006  With JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD (VR) on Tape # FTR 2   & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ  Also with  Public Defender ALISON McPEEK 

HOSPITAL DATES 10-30-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21743876) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

HOSPITAL DATES 11-02-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21746442) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

HOSPITAL DATES 11-03-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE KM8357733 ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

HOSPITAL DATES 11-05-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE Not ? EMR ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

HOSPITAL DATES 11-07-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21749224) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

HOSPITAL DATES 11-10-2006 (ER) JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE + HELP ME RANDLES! LAB BAR CODE NUMBERS ARE (Z21752082) ALL HOSPITAL ARE IN SPOKANE, Wa. THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS + IS VOID !  COURT IN SPOKANE, WA. SAID JANE DOE OR JOHN DOE HAVE NO RIGHTS NOW.

NOV 16 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender BOTH  M. Lorenz &  A. McPeek 

Court Date is 12-01-2006  With JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD (VR) on Tape # FTR 2   & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ

Court Date is 12-01-2006  With JUDGE NOT KNOW YET (VR) on Tape # FTR 9

Court Date is 12-08-2006  With JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD (VR) on Tape # FTR 2    & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & Public Defender is MARK LORENZ

Court Date is 12-12-2006  With JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD (VR) on Tape # FTR 9 CASE #  697086AH + FILED DATE 11-21-2006 + With JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD 

JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD + ORDERED CASE MOVED TO SUPERIOR COURT + CASE # 06-2-05360-0 + CASE NOW BEFORE THE + Commissioner Fred W. Aronow  +  HEARING SET DATE 12 / 28 / 2006 + BEFORE Commissioner Joseph F. Valente

DEC 27 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

DEC 28 2006 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095

Court Date is 1-18-2007 + With Judge JOHN O. COONEY IN CASE & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON & REINKEN  Public Defender is MARK LORENZ  Also with Public Defender ALISON McPEEK THE CASE # CR52967 IS DISMISSED on 01-18-07 BY ORDER JUDGE JOHN O. COONEY FOR THAT THE  (1) Prosecuting Attorney LYNDON SMITHSON LIED IN COURT ABOUT ( I HAVE A AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE. ) (2) THAT SPOKANE SHERIFF DEPUTY CINDY NORTH JONES FILED FALSE SHERIFF’S REPORT’S & LIED & DID NOT DO ANY INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE AT ALL OR TALK TO THE VICTIM IN THE CASES (3) LATER IN THE CASE ( JANE DOE ) I LOVE Mr. TOMPKINS & SAID I ASK HIM TO MARRY ME & SHE SAID THAT RANDLES P. TOMPKINS DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG TO ME EVER ! & SAID I WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU & I WANT TO BE HIS WIFE / HELP ME RANDLES
JAN 18 2007 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 

JAN 22 2007 MEETING With My Public Defender Mark Lorenz wsba # 16095 
All Case’s are Randles Tompkins V. Jane or John DOE / But (2)
Denial of Due Process /Insufficiency Evidence /Cross-Examine!

REMEMBER NOT ALL JUDGES/ COMM. ARE BAD & NOT ALL ARE DISHONORABLE

HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VIRGINIA ROCKWOOD (VR) SPOKANE, WA. 99260 USA !

ALSO THIS IS THE SAME JUDGE ( VR ) FROM MY CRIMINAL TRIAL CR0052967 DV STALKING RCW 9A.46.110 + CASE IS DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE !


ITS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS JUDGE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BENCH ! 

Virginia Rockwood - Lawyer Profile +               Dishonorable Judge Virginia Rockwood  
Virginia Rockwood Dist. Ct. Comr.
W. 1100 Mallon Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.)
Experience & Credentials 
Practice Areas Criminal Law (90%); Civil Litigation (10%) 
University University of Oregon, B.S. 
Law School McGeorge School of Law, J.D. 
Admitted 1980  +
ISLN 902072600
Member Name: Virginia Black Rockwood WSBA Bar #: 11253
Firm or Employer:   Admit Date: 10/28/1980
Address: PO Box 10258 + Spokane, WA  99209-1258
United States Status: Active + Phone: (509) 993-1601
 

MORNING SESSION

February 28, 2006, 10:01 a.m.

(The following proceedings occurred in open court:)

                         THE COURT:  Please be seated.  Thank you.  All right.  If we could have case number 686281DV, Charlotte DOE, Mr. Naccarato.  Mr. Tompkins, please come forward and have a seat at the right-hand counsel table, if you would there.  It’s just on the other side of these people.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Thank you, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  You’re welcome.  Now, I have a declaration that you received a copy this morning.  Have you had time to read through that, sir?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, sir--  yes, Ma’am, I have read it.  It is not true.

                         THE COURT:  There are some things in there that you feel are not true?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  It did not happen at all--

                         THE COURT:  All right.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  as per--

                         THE COURT:  We’ll go ahead and have a hearing on that part with everyone under oath.  Let’s talk about the original statements that you got when the police department gave you these papers.  It looks like you were served on the 19th, on a Sunday.  You got all of the paperwork they served you out on Inland Empire Way.  The sheriff’s office gave those to you.

                         Now what Charlotte DOE is doing is asking that you not have any contact at all with Stephanie DOE.  And if I understand that correctly, that is because she’s been named as the guardian for Stephanie.  Do you understand that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Ma’am.

                         THE COURT:  And you got the portions of the paperwork saying that they felt that you were taking advantage of her.  And then today there’s more statements that have been made and you’ve been given a copy of those.

                         I do need to have both parties please stand, raise your right-hand to be sworn in.

 CHARLOTTE DOE

RANDLES TOMPKINS

Sworn, under oath, to tell the truth,

the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth:

                         THE COURT:  Go ahead and be seated.  Ms. DOE, are you still asking for this order to be granted today?

                         MS. DOE:  Yes.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  And, Mr. Tompkins, you are objecting to the order, is that correct?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Ma’am.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  And you told me that you may be hiring an attorney on this or will you be representing yourself today?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I will be representing myself today, but I spoke with an attorney that advised me to what to do today.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  So, are you ready to proceed then, sir?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I would like to proceed--  I’m--  still did not have--  you know, I read the other stuff, but that would be fine.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I can always--  yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  That would be fine.  All right.  We’re going to go ahead and proceed today then.  I’d like to accept the declaration and the petition as is.  I don’t believe we need additional testimony.

                         We don’t need any testimony from Stephanie, but I would like to point out that we have an exhibit that is going to be made a part of the court record.  Now, this was filed actually, but I do need to make a ruling on it.

                         And it appears to be a true and correct copy of an order appointing guardian filed November 4, 1998.  And it’s done in our Superior Court, right here in Spokane County.  I’m going to have the bailiff mark that and have that admitted into evidence.  That is the piece of paper that gives the court the authority to direct that Charlotte DOE is her guardian and has the right to come into court on her behalf.

                         Do you have any questions about that document, about the fact that Charlotte DOE acts legally as a guardian of Stephanie DOE?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Do I get a copy of that, or how does that work for--

                         THE COURT:  Well, as far as getting a copy, it’s public record.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Public record, okay.

                         THE COURT:  So, yes, sir, you would.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Your Honor, that was also included in the declaration that I did give to Mr. Tompkins.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  I think it’s the back few pages there.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  There’s a big sheet that looks like this.  It says Exhibit A.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.  I see it.

                         THE COURT:  And the page right behind that is a three-page document, four pages with the signatures--  no, that’s the declaration.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I--  I see it.

                         THE COURT:  Do you see it there?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  The order appointing guardian that’s the Superior Court order that allows Ms. DOE to come in on Stephanie DOE behalf.

                         Now, at this time, Mr. Tompkins, you would like to challenge the paperwork that’s been filed here accusing you of these acts, is that correct?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Ma’am.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Let me ask this.  Mr. Naccarato, do you know whether or not there have been any reports to law enforcement or referrals regarding any criminal charges in this case against Mr. Tompkins?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor, I do.  There--  there has been a report and Deputy Badicke is also present in the courtroom, and he does have a copy of the police report.  And there has been--  the report number is 060045600.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  And is Deputy Badicke here then at your call today?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  He is, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  We’re going to have, Mr. Tompkins, Deputy Badicke come up and testify.  I, also, before you testify, I’m going to warn you now that I am going to be giving you some warnings against incriminating yourself by making statements in today’s court, because that can be used against you later.  By law, I’m required to advise you of that.

                         Deputy Badicke, would you come forward to be sworn in, please?  Raise your right-hand, please.

 RICHARD BADICKE,

 Called as a witness on behalf

of the Plaintiff, having been

first duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

                         THE COURT:  We’ll do the best we can here with the jury box bench.  If you would have a seat there.  Mr. Naccarato--  or we could have the bailiff do that. Just twist the microphone there to where it can pick him up.  It does very well at picking up almost everybody in the courtroom.  Thank you.

                         All right.  Would you state your name, and spell your last name, please.  It could pick you up from--

                         THE WITNESS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  the back.

                         THE WITNESS:  Richard Badicke.  I’m a deputy sheriff, Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Naccarato, do you have any questions that you would like to ask this witness?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Sure.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. NACCARATO:

     Q.    Okay.  Deputy Badicke, you are a sheriff’s officer, correct?  Or a deputy with the Sheriff’s Department?

     A.    Yes, I’m a commissioned deputy, Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.

     Q.    Okay.  And did you receive a complaint from--   regarding Mr. Tompkins?

     A.    On February 14th, Mr. Tompkins had contacted me at the sheriff front desk in the Public Safety Building wanting to file a report, missing person reference, Stephanie DOE.

     Q.    And did you do an investigation into that?

     A.    I received information from him.  I contacted a couple of individuals which Mr. Tompkins had mentioned to me, one of which was Adult Protection Services, and got additional information on the situation, relationship that he was trying to file a complaint on.

     Q.    Okay.  And what did--  what did your investigation uncover?

     A.    That Mr. Tompkins had a relationship of an intimate nature with Stephanie DOE, and that Stephanie was a client of the DD, disabled--  or developmentally disabled persons and that APS had been contacted, reference the situation between Mr. Tompkins and her.

                         Mr. Tompkins had contacted APS about the same complaint he was contacting me about, and brought in some documentation and a cassette tape that he said were threats against him by family members trying to keep him away from Stephanie.

     Q.    And did you review those tapes?

     A.    I did not review the tape.  I put the tape on property as evidence since he requested, to be used by a detective to look at.

     Q.    Okay.  And is there still an ongoing investigation into this matter?

     A.    Yes, there is.  The initial report I put--  entitled as suspicious circumstance.  After talking to APS, I felt there were elements in there of harassment and that may be to the U level of stalking and that investigation is being followed up by Detective Chris Thompson of our DV task force.

     Q.    Okay.  And--  and as a sheriff’s deputy, do you believe that would be in Ms. DOE best interest to have this--  the protection order put in place?

     A.    Yes, I do.

     Q.    Okay.  Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  I have a couple of questions to clarify.  The original report came from the respondent to you?

                         THE WITNESS:  The respondent came to the front desk, Mr. Tompkins, wanting to file a missing person report.  And he explained that he and Stephanie had a relationship that her mother was trying to keep them apart, that they had gone to Idaho, that they had sex in Idaho.  He had brought in a Harry Ritchie’s jeweler’s--  what appeared to be a flyer.  It was a copy of possibly a sales brochure with Stephanie’s name and address on it.

                         And he also brought in a photocopied certified mail receipt with a bunch of notes on it, and a copy of his driver’s license with a bunch of phone numbers that he said he had acquired from the family members or about the family members, that he had sent a get well card to her into the hospital, and it was not--  it was unclaimed.

                         He claimed that the family was not allowing him to contact Stephanie.

                         THE COURT:  On the Harry Ritchie paperwork, what was that reporting to show to you?

                         THE WITNESS:  That was supposed to be engagement and wedding rings that he wanted--  he said that he and Stephanie were going to go shopping for rings.

                         THE COURT:  And when you indicated that your report number turned into a notation of suspicious circumstances, that was his report, then you said harassment stalking, and it was referred to the task force.  Whose harassment of who are you investigating since there are complaints both ways in this investigation?

                         THE WITNESS:  Well--

                         THE COURT:  Or did it turn from one to the other?

                         THE WITNESS:  --  I initiated the report number, which I gave the report number to Mr. Tompkins and said okay.  This will be a report of suspicious circumstance, for the record.

                         I took the information documentation he gave me to make part of the report and/or evidence of the tape, and when I’m talking to somebody that’s making a record or complaint, I also take into consideration the information that I have got from confidential sources or confidential information from APS on that stating that they had their suspicions, they had their complaints about Mr. Tompkins.

                         And so at that point the suspicious circumstance initial title on the report was changed to a stalking and--  which would put it through to the investigative unit to follow up on, which it would have gone there anyway.

                         THE COURT:  But, you’re referring to his stalking of Stephanie, not--

                         THE WITNESS:  His stalking--

                         THE COURT:  --  her family on him--

                         THE WITNESS:  --  yes.

                         THE COURT:  --  just to be clear.

                         THE WITNESS:  Yes.  So, the--  it would appear with the information that I was getting from numerous sources that Mr. Tompkins had an obsession with Stephanie and the information from the family, and DSHS case managers was that it was a one-sided relationship.

                         And the family, I found out within a day had acquired the temporary protection order against him.  That’s why I included that information, also in the report.

                         THE COURT:  Have you ever interviewed Stephanie?

                         THE WITNESS:  No.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  She was under a guardianship at this point.  Has it come to your attention at all throughout this investigation whether or not there may be facts sufficient to open an investigation regarding any indecent liberties claims or charges based on her incapacitation?  I’m not presuming forcible and I’m not familiar with the statutes as they’ve been amended in the last five to ten years, but I only raise that to understand what I might need to advise him against.

                         THE WITNESS:  Well, the information I was given by family and by DSHS staff case managers were that she has cognitive inability for some reasoning, reference her likelihood to have sex with different people, and for making cognitive decisions.

                         And that information is part of the reason why I wrote the report to send to the detective to go over it with a fine tooth comb as to the different elements of whether Mr. Tompkins did enter the residence when the parents weren’t there, did go through the residence without permission, and that Stephanie didn’t have the cognitive ability to give him permission to do so, and that she went with him and whether he took this flyer or brochure from the home, that he brought a copy of to me, and also a copy of one page of the DSHS flyer reference what is the abuse by caregivers, or guardians, or other adults, stating that she was being victimized by her mother and family.

                         And so, I said well, you don’t have grounds for making a missing person report, but I’ll take the information and put it into this report.  And at that point, after talking to APS, I made Sue Griner (phonetic), the case manager at APS the main complainant to initiate the report, because the information that triggered the report for stalking came from her.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Any other questions that you have of the deputy in light of my--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Tompkins, this is your opportunity to ask questions of the deputy.  I’ll give you a chance to tell your side of the story, if you wish in a minute, but let’s give you an opportunity to ask questions.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Yes, Ma’am.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. TOMPKINS:

     Q.    My understanding was, sir, that on--  when I came to you, you told me this would be an information report only?

     A.    At that time it was an information report only, under suspicious circumstances.

     Q.    Right.  I provided you with all the documentation.  I have a copy of the tape with me here today of Stephanie’s own personal voice. 

     A.    And you gave me the documentation that you brought with you, I believe at that time to show that you were a good, outstanding person, that you were truly concerned about her welfare and what--  the situation that she was in.

                         And so I accepted that information from you.  You gave it to me voluntarily.  And the tape recorder--  the tape, cassette tape was you said threats against you by family members.  And I explained that I would put that on property and a detective would look at that as far as any possibility of criminal charges for making threats against you for assault, nothing more.

                         THE COURT:  Any other questions?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’m required--  I can tell my story, but I was required--

                         THE COURT:  Uh-huh.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  by DSHS, because I’m a state health care worker to report this, is why I went down in the first place, because I work--  I work as a nursing assistant certified.

                         THE COURT:  And had you ever worked in that capacity with Stephanie?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Not with her.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I did not know that she was with Beth.  I have never seen her except outside businesses, restaurants.  I do not know that she had a guardian at the time.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Do you have any other questions of the deputy?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Not at this time, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Deputy Badicke, you may step down.  And may this witness be excused if he wishes?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  All right.

                         THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  You’re welcome.  Thank you very much for being here.

                         Mr. Tompkins, you also have an opportunity, after having received Ms. DOE written statements to ask her questions if you would like about what she’s put in the statements.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

CHARLOTTE DOE

Called as a witness on behalf of

herself, having been previously

duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION



BY MR. TOMPKINS:

     Q.    Did Stephanie actually tell you this stuff in the statement?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Objection, Your Honor, that’s--  I would like to know what stuff he’s talking about.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  When I went to the hospital to see Stephanie she’s right--  she was in room--  she’s on floor--  I went down to the front desk, asked if Stephanie DOE here.  Steve Lefler (phonetic), I talked to him the night of the first--  at the night of the Super Bowl.  I called his house a half hour after the Super Bowl, and I asked if Stephanie was there.

                         And he said--  they said no, that she was in the hospital.  That’s how I found out from some friends, the day after.  I did not rush up to the hospital the night after the Super Bowl.  I went up on a Monday because Stephanie’s been asking--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, you can tell about all of that in just a moment--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  if you wish, but specifically if you want to ask her is it true Stephanie told you this--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  or Stephanie told you that.  What her attorney is saying is let’s narrow it down a little bit--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  to what exact topics you’d like to know--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  if Stephanie told you, so we can all be clear.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Thank you, Your Honor.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Your Honor, and I’d also like to put onto the record that the information contained in Ms. DOE declaration is virtually the same information as was contained in the petition, in the domestic violence petition--

                         THE COURT:  I heard them both.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  so, Mr. Tompkins has essentially seen all of this information previously.

                         THE COURT:  Yes, he has.  But, he has some cross-examination questions as to whether or not--  he can ask whether or not she told him that specifically.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Personally this is not at all how it happened in the hospital.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, let’s not talk about that.  Do you have any questions for her, if your question is is it true that Stephanie told you that--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Well, I would like to know--

                         THE COURT:  --  let’s talk about which piece.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I would like--  okay.  The entire part of November--  not November, the entire part of is--

                         THE COURT:  Take your time.  There’s paperwork here, that’s RRT.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  The entire part of the statement on February 2nd, is not true except for the fact that I did--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  This is your chance to ask questions of her.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Perfect.

                         THE COURT:  If you want to ask her ask is it true that Stephanie told you all the things she told you in there--  if you want to ask her--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  I--

                         THE COURT:  --  I’m-- 

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  okay.  Is it true that Stephanie told you--

                         THE COURT:  It’s your declaration.  I don’t think there are very many allegations here.  It’s all one--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I--  I--  I do not believe Stephanie said that.  I think it’s made up.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Ask her if that’s true.

     Q.    Is that true that she said that?

     A.    Stephanie first called her brother, Jim, frantic  because you had been at the hospital.  And then she called her brother, Mark, and then she called me.  And she said that you wouldn’t leave when you were asked to leave, and she made her excuses, went to the bathroom, forgot there was an emergency pull in there, stayed in there a long time.  But, she came out and you were still fidgeting through her phone and all the phone numbers in it.

                         And then she told--  and at some point, you forced a kiss on her.  You hovered over her, she was afraid, she was ill.  She couldn’t move in the bed, and you didn’t leave when you were asked several times.  And then she said that her brother was on the way up, and so you scurried off.  Yes, it was true.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  None of that, Your Honor, was true.

                         THE COURT:  Did you have any other questions for this--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  No other questions for the--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  thank you, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Do you have any other witnesses that you have brought to present today, Mr. Naccarato?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, yes, Your Honor, I can.  If you believe it’s necessary, I can.  I have Tom DOE is here.

                         THE COURT:  Today’s the day of the hearing, so--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Absolutely.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. DOE.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No, actually I would like to call Stephanie’s brother, Mark.

                         THE COURT:  Just call him by name.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Mark DOE.  I’d like to call Mark DOE.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. DOE, please raise your right-hand to be sworn in.

MARK DOE,

 Called as a witness on behalf

of the plaintiff, having been first

 duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

                         THE COURT:  If you would, please, have a seat on the jury bench there.  We’ll go ahead and have you sit down there, and tell us your full name, spelling your last name for the court record, please.

                         THE WITNESS:  My full name is Mark Earl DOE.  My last name is spelled D-O-E

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Naccarato.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. NACCARATO:

     Q.    And, Mr. Kieffer, you are Stephanie DOE brother, correct?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    Okay.  And there was a night when Stephanie was in the hospital, and she requested that you stay the night there, is that correct?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    And why did she request that you stay there?  

            A.    Because she was very ill and the nurse staff at the hospital wasn’t able to take care of her the entire time, and she needed extra care.

     Q.    Okay.  And--  and did Mr. Tompkins enter Stephanie’s room while you were there, uninvited?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    And did you ask him to leave?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    And did he leave?

     A.    He--  no, he did not leave right away.  He left after a few minutes.  I had to prompt him a few times to leave and he finally left.

     Q.    Okay.  And have you made it clear to Mr. Tompkins that Stephanie does not wish to see him and that he is to have no further contact with her?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    Okay.  And do you believe that it is in Stephanie’s best interest to have this protection order in place?

     A.    Yes, I do, based on all of the evidence that I have heard about--  well, that--  that I’ve heard about what’s been presented in this court, and also from Stephanie.

     Q.    Okay.  And--  and have you ever threatened Mr. Tompkins with bodily harm before?

     A.    No.

     Q.    Okay.  Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Mr.--  go ahead and have a seat, sir. 

                         Mr. Tompkins, do you have any questions of this witness?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor, I do.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. TOMPKINS:

     Q.    I was in the hallway at the hospital and called Stephanie from outside the hall, and you answered the phone, and Stephanie said I could hear him in the hall, have him come in.  And when I walked in the room, you said--

                         THE COURT:  Now, you’re testifying--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Objection to--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Oh, excuse me.

                         THE COURT:  --  sir.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  What I need you to do is ask--

     Q.    Did you--

                         THE COURT:  --  sir, hold on--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Excuse me.

                         THE COURT:  --  just a minute, Mr. Tompkins.  The best way to do that--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  --  since you don’t have an attorney, is you may say, isn’t it true that-- 

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  this happened, and then it’s a question.

     Q.    Isn’t it--  isn’t it true that I called you in Stephanie’s room on the cell phone?

     A.    No.

     Q.    Did you tell me that I was too old to be with Stephanie in the hospital room?

     A.    Yes, I did.

     Q.    Then I handed Stephanie a card and then I left?

     A.    Yes, you did.

     Q.    I wasn’t there more than two or three minutes, tops?

     A.    I don’t know how long it was, but I did ask you to leave and you didn’t leave when I asked you.

     Q.    Stephanie asked me--  did Stephanie ask me to stay?

     A.    No, she didn’t.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  That’s all the questions, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  You may step down, sir.  Any other witnesses, Mr. Naccarato?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, Your Honor, are you--  will you be admitting Ms. DOE declaration--

                         THE COURT:  Yes--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  into evidence?

                         THE COURT:  --  yes, I will.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Okay.  Okay.  Then, no, Your Honor, I have no further witnesses.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Tompkins, this is your opportunity to present your defense and tell me why you think I should not grant this order.  You are under oath, sir.

                         You may speak freely and I will allow a certainly amount of narrative, Mr. Naccarato, just because of the informal nature.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Absolutely.

                         THE COURT:  You go right ahead and tell me why you think this order should not be entered, sir, especially in light of the fact that you now know that Stephanie is not able to consent for herself to a relationship, not with you, not with anyone over the objections of her guardian.

                         Now, I do need to advise you before you say anything today, you have under the Constitution of the United States, a Fifth Amendment right against incriminating yourself.  That means that you have a right to remain silent, because anything you do say here today is tape recorded, and can and will be used against you by Deputy Badicke and anyone in the Sheriff’s Office, Prosecutor’s Office, or court in any future criminal investigation, or in a civil case.  Do you understand that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Now, that can affect your license.  You said you have an NAR?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  That’s something that’s authorized by the state and you do have to renew it, and harm to persons, especially persons who may be subject to the Disabilities Act can be a black mark on your record for your employment, as well as you may face jail penalties if there is an investigation that results in a criminal charge.

                         Now, Officer Badicke indicates that this is still under investigation, but with that in mind, I do need to advise you against making any statements today that might be used against you.  Do you understand that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor, I do.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  I have someone in the back there raising their hand.

                         MR. CROWLEY:  Your Honor, my name is Dwight Crowley (phonetic), investigator--

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Hold on before you do any of that.  Let’s start out, Mr. Tompkins, do you know this individual?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I do not think I do, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Naccarato, do you know this individual?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I had just recently met him this morning.  I was unaware that he would be showing up at this--  at this hearing.

                         THE COURT:  And is he a witness of yours?  I thought you indicated you had no other witnesses.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No, Your Honor, he is not a witness of mine.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Technically under the court rules, sir, you’re out of order, but I do need to ask why you do feel compelled to raise your hand in the middle of a hearing.

                         MR. CROWLEY:  Well, it kind of went along with your warning, Your Honor.  I am an investigator with the Department of Health.  And I am here to gather information concerning his ability to hold a license--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. CROWLEY:  --  as a registered nurse in the system.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Tompkins, I appreciate him standing up and saying that, because I didn’t know he was here.  I didn’t know that there was an investigation going on, but I felt an obligation to tell you, because I know people who are NARs that are any other type of registered healthcare worker, and it’s important that you know that not only with the criminal element, but also with your employment, anything you say today is going--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I know.

                         THE COURT:  --  to be used against you in court later.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I know.

                         THE COURT:  With that in mind, if you had an attorney here today, I’m sure Mr. Naccarato could confirm, the advice to you would be to remain silent and say nothing.  Okay.  Now, you’ve already said at the beginning of this hearing that you didn’t know that Stephanie had a guardian, and that may be.  There are people with disabilities in the community who have a social life.

                         They don’t necessarily walk up to people in a public place with a sign on them saying off limits.  So, to be fair to you, that sometimes is the case.  Now, what you need to understand from today forward is that anything you say to incriminate yourself, will be used against you, not only in a court of law, but also with the Department of Health.

                         With that in mind, do you wish to have any other statements today?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Can I--  would I be allowed to have an attorney, because of being presented the paperwork--

                         THE COURT:  Well, technically, no, you may hire a lawyer.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  You could have done that and come in with an attorney here.  You have a right to bring one in, but if you mean, are you referring to a free--  a public defender?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  A public defender only comes into play when a person has been arrested or charged with a crime where it’s jailable.  That’s not the case here yet.   Is that true, Deputy Badicke?  He hasn’t been arrested yet?

                         DEPUTY BADICKE:  (Inaudible)

                         THE COURT:  If and when you got to the point to where an investigation resulted in your arrest or charged with a crime, you then immediately have a right to a public defender and a right to say I’d like to talk to my lawyer before making any statements.  You also have a right not to say anything even when you do have a public defender.  Does that clarify it?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  Yes, sir.

                         DEPUTY BADICKE:  Your Honor, can I make a statement reference the guardianship knowledge?

                         THE COURT:  Yes.

                         DEPUTY BADICKE:  Mr. Tompkins contacted me at the front desk.  He did tell me that her mother was her guardian, so he had that information already.

                         THE COURT:  All right.

                         DEPUTY BADICKE:  And that’s why he, you know, relayed that information--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, before you say anything else, Mr. Tompkins, Deputy Badicke felt it fair to at least advise you that that’s what was said when you walked up to the front desk.

                         In this hearing today, you said you didn’t know it at--  whether you didn’t know it when you first met her, or you found out about it at what point, is something that will probably be important in your employment investigation.  So, with these warnings, I hesitate to allow you speak at all.  I can’t stop you from giving your side of the story, but I sure advise you not to.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  What I’d like to say, Your Honor, is that I did not know that she had a guardian after November, when we first started seeing each other.  I have actually seen Stephanie off and on for over two and a half years.



                         She was at Steve’s house two years ago, her mother had let her move in.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  When you say after November, you mean you didn’t know--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I did not know she--

                         THE COURT:  --  before November?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  had it before--  after I stopped seeing Stephanie.  She stopped calling me on November 8th.  I have had no contact with her, except in the hospital on February 2nd.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Since that time, I have not talked to her since it.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  What is your position regarding the request for this no contact order, this restraining order?  That’s what we’re here for today.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  I have--

                         THE COURT:  That’s the only thing we’re here for.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  okay.  I’m--  Stephanie asked me to be here.  She asked me to help her.  She said that her mother--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  And when was that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  She asked me to help her on November 4, 2005.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, this case hadn’t been filed then.  So, as far as I’m concerned the only thing I’m--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  here for today is the fact that this lady wants you to have no more contact with Stephanie.  What’s your position on that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I--  at this time, I’m planning not to have no more contact with her--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  because I’ve been told to proceed through the court system.

                         THE COURT:  Uh-huh.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I was told to go to DSH twice and then go to the Spokane Police Department.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  And then I would go--  beyond that would be through court.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Anything else you’d like to say regarding whether or not this order for you not to have contact with her should be issued today?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’m not quite sure what you--

                         THE COURT:  Well, she is the guardian.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  She’s asking me to limit that you can’t see Stephanie.  What’s your feeling about that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Well, I understand that I cannot see her, but because I work for the state if I have an order against me, then that takes my job away, because right now, I’m--

                         THE COURT:  Well, that may be true and that’s not something that I can solve right now.  That’s something that you may want to discuss with an attorney.  I don’t know where this investigation is going to go, but at this point I’m going to hear what’s called a closing statement from both parties.

                         Mr. Naccarato will sum up his case and ask me to issue the order and why.  And then you’ll be allowed to make a closing statement as why you don’t think you should get this order.  Okay.  We’ll start with Mr. Naccarato.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Well, as--  as Deputy Badicke has--  has testified, there has been a criminal complaint in this matter regarding allegations of Mr. Tompkins.  In addition, given the sensitive nature of this and the potential that--  that Stephanie is a vulnerable adult and there are some serious consensual issues, she is in great danger of that because she does have some cognitive impairment, and also she has some--  some issues with--  with whether or not to go along.

                         Stephanie is a very, very caring individual.  And she wants to be liked by people, and--  and essentially she’s very easily preyed upon by that especially in a sexual nature.  Mr. Tompkins has already demonstrated that he--  that he will use Stephanie’s naïveté to--  to prey upon her as--  as is demonstrated by--  by his action on November 2, 2005, where he took her to Post Falls, as--  as is referenced in--  in Ms. DOE declaration.

                         In addition, even--  even after Mr. Tompkins has been asked to have no contact with Stephanie, he still continues to pursue a relationship, and--  and will not essentially leave her alone.  And, Your Honor, during the course of Deputy Badicke’s investigation, he also uncovered that Mr. Tompkins does have a concealed weapon’s permit and does have weapons.  And I would also request that the--   that the court if--  if the petition is granted that the court order Mr. Tompkins immediately surrender all of his firearms, given the fact that there is a potential for violence in this matter.

                         Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  Thank you.  I’d like to hear from you, sir.

                         MR. TOMPKINS: Okay.  Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  And you’re not required to make--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  --  any closing statement, either, especially if it might incriminate you.  Do you understand that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.  I have--  I have a perfect background.  I have never been arrested.  I have a document here with me that shows--

                         THE COURT:  Well, I have that information as well, and I will confirm that.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  I have never--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  We’ll stipulate to it.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  I have never threatened Stephanie at all.  The entire statement, if Stephanie was here herself to actually testify is untrue.  She did not say any of this stuff.  I could--  I was actually at work at the time that they supposedly allege that this even happened.

                         Her mother did not leave the house till 1:00.  I was with Stephanie for an hour.  She asked me to come over--

                         THE COURT:  And like I said, you probably--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  shouldn’t be making statements about--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  the allegations--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  here.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  I’m not a harm to Stephanie.  I’ve never stalked Stephanie.  It is not right to jeopardize my job--

                         THE COURT:  No.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  over this, for the fact that my background, I’m required by law to be a mandatory reporter.  Stephanie told me that she’s been held down under duress.  Her mother forced her to sign documents.  She is not allowed anywhere without somebody constantly watching her.

                         She asked me to help her and that’s why I went and reported it to the state.  I have not stalked her.  I have recordings of her asking me to help.  I have recordings of her saying if--  at the time not knowing that she was a DDD client, saying I have met her at somebody else’s house.  I have never been to the family’s house, except one time when I was invited.

                         I have phone records of all the calls between me and Stephanie with me of her calling me first.  And I’ve seen her two and a half years, I actually met her at the same time Steve did, at the exact same dance.  And often, every time she can escape the house, she tries to get a hold of me.

                         Stephanie has called me over two and a half years ago on phone records asking me to help her before her mother got a hold of her and took her back home and locked her up.  So, I would honestly--  if Stephanie could actually be here herself, the statements on these statements are false.  None of the statements are true, except for the time--  I did not go to the places they said we went or anything.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  I would like to hear from you, Mr. Naccarato, regarding the basis for this being a DV rather than anti-harassment petition in that on the one hand, the statute requires a dating relationship and yet your client can’t consent.  So, there is a gap in the definition of a domestic violence protection order that requires, number one, that I find that there’s a domestic violence family member designation, or that they dated in the past, and that’s the one that I’m having the problem with.  And that may be undisputed, according to his statements, your client’s declaration pretty much, however, indicates that it’s statutorily without consent, because of her guardianship alone.

                         Even if there is a designation that falls within dated in the past, I do need evidence of a domestic violence act, either now or in the past that would include threat, stalking, under the stalking definition.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Uh-huh.

                         THE COURT:  And usually that requires a little bit more than boyfriend/girlfriend wanting to get together.  So, that’s where I’m within a rock and a hard place.  If Stephanie were 13, I would have a problem.  If they’re having sex it may be statutory, but it would not be a domestic violence crime, as listed under the statute.  So, I would like to hear from you as to your theories regarding that.  You’ve had a couple of appeals in the last two weeks regarding the definition of domestic violence, family member, and domestic violence act.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor.  Well, because there was--  because there was a sexual act and Stephanie would fall under the definition of a vulnerable adult, under the RCW that is satisfied.  The intimate contact element of--  of the domestic violence requirement has been--  has been made because Mr. Tompkins and Ms. DOE did engage in sexual activity on or about November 2, 2005.

                         THE COURT:  And under what statute are you referring to, a criminal statute, vulnerable adult that you’re referring to?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I believe it’s--

                         THE COURT:  For all other purposes under the Department of Health and Licensing, that’s true--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  uh-huh.

                         THE COURT:  --  as far as domestic violence designation under this statute, that’s what I’m looking for.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  It’s RCW 74, Your Honor, and I apologize.

                         THE COURT:  No, that’s the civil may--  it might be wrong.  It’s 74, why don’t you grab that 26.50 is the title that I have to satisfy.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor.  But with respect to the actual domestic violence--  the actual Domestic Violence Act--

                         THE COURT:  The crime--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  correct.

                         THE COURT:  --  I’m looking for a 9 or a 9A--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  or 9.44.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, Mr. Tompkins did--  there is the stalking complaint that has been filed, and there is the investigation that--  the ongoing investigation into that matter.

                         In addition, Mr. Tompkins brandished a weapon and told Ms.--  Ms. DOE that he intended to use that weapon in order to protect himself and her from any--  from any harm that--  that--  that--  if--  against anybody that was trying to--

                         THE COURT:  Remind me where that is in your declaration.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  It should be there.  If not, it is--

                         THE COURT:  It might be something you guys have all talked about that I might have missed that.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Actually, Your Honor, it is in the petition for the order of protection.

                         THE COURT:  The original petition?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor, it is.

                         THE COURT:  Let me take a look at that.  Okay.  There we go.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  It is on page three, and it is approximately the--  it is the third and fourth line down.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  The third line, the petitioner was shown a gun by respondent to use here for petitioner to continue relationship with respondent.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  That is untrue, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Are you referring to that act being against Ms. DOE?  Was Ms. DOE there at the time?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor.  Ms. DOE was there at the time.

                         THE COURT:  Sometimes the initial petitions are not completely clear who was where.  All right.  Go ahead and have a seat.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Sure.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I would like to point out this is the first time I’ve ever seen Mrs. DOE.  I have never seen her at the hospital or anywhere.  The only person I’ve ever seen is Stephanie.  I have seen the brother one time.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  I’d like to reopen testimony for that issue.  You’re still under oath, Ms. DOE.  Tell me what happened on the day that you alleged that he showed a gun to you regarding this relationship.

                         MS. DOE:  No, he didn’t show it to me.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  It was Ms. DOE.

                         THE COURT:  And she’s not here.  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Your Honor, could I ask what time on the November 2nd that they said I was with the lady?

                         THE COURT:  That’s what I was just asking.  Did the petitioner--  so that’s where the petitions get confusing.  When--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I apologize, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  --  when Ms. DOE came in here she was referring to the petitioner not as herself, but as Stephanie DOE.

                         MR. NACCARATO: Yes, Your Honor.  I--  I put it on behalf of Stephanie DOE, and I--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  And was this the same incident where her brother was there?  The same time and date, or different?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  This would--

                         THE COURT:  Go ahead, Ms. DOE.

                         MS. DOE:  Yes, Stephanie told me that he showed the gun the same day that he had sex with her and it was in his van.  That he kept his gun in his van with the dark windows that he had sex with her in.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  So, it wasn’t--

                         MS. DOE:  He said--

                         THE COURT:  --  it wasn’t the hospital portion--

                         MS. DOE:  No.

                         THE COURT:  --  at all.  All right.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  And this is not true.

                         THE COURT:  All right.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  What time was she--

                         THE COURT:  Well, I can--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  what time was I with Stephanie--

                         THE COURT:  --  okay.  I can tell you this.  None of that would rise to a level to be admissible in a criminal court without Stephanie testifying.  And depending upon her degree of incapacitation, if she is able to be a competent witness, which means a mental age of minimal seven, even possibly younger than that, she would be able to testify to that.  But, for the purposes of a civil court, I have a different burden to take a look at.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Your Honor-- 

                         THE COURT:  I’m not going to have you say anything else about this.  Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  okay.

                         THE COURT:  I need to just take a look at the Domestic Violence Prevention Act--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Thank you--  thank you, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  --  when it refers to stalking, it’s defined in 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member.  Under family or household member means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common, whether they’ve been married or lived together, adult persons related by blood or marriage, which is the problem here.  She’s under a guardianship, questionably whether she could be considered as an adult.

                         Adult persons who are presently residing together or who have resided in the past, persons 16 years of age or older who are presently residing together or who have resided in the past, or who have had a dating relationship.  Persons 16 years of age or older, with whom a respondent 16 years of age or older, or has had a dating relationship and persons who have a parent/child relationship, including stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.

                         So, as you can see, this entire statute refers to people who are over 16.  Because Stephanie is alleged to be in the petition, a teenager, I haven’t heard any evidence of whether or not her cognitive ability would put her at the over 16 age.  That is something that will be talked about now.  If so, she would be a consenting adult for sexual purposes.  However, the guardianship would take away her freedom of choice.  But, I do need to ask Ms. DOE on this specific issue, tell me the relationship.  She is your daughter, is that correct?

                         MS. DOE:  Yes.

                         THE COURT:  And you have the guardianship through Superior Court when testimony was presented.  To the best of your knowledge, what, if any, approximations of her mental age have been given?

                         MS. DOE:  I don’t really know for sure.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Naccarato, do you have any of that information that might have been the basis for the petition?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I’m looking at it, Your Honor.  My understanding is that there has never actually been any cognitive testing by any--  by any psychiatrist, psychologist--

                         THE COURT:  So, that’s not part of the record?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No, it is not--

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  part of the record, Your Honor.  It’s--  essentially it has not been done.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  Then I’m going to go under subsection three, dating relationship means a social relationship of a romantic nature.

                         Factors the court may consider in making this determination include the length of time the relationship has existed, and Mr. Tompkins, the respondent tells me that he believes they have been at least friendly or he’s had some kind of a relationship with her for at least--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Two and a half years.

                         THE COURT:  --  two years, two and a half years.  That’s the testimony before the court.  The length in time the relationship has existed, the nature of the relationship.

                         The nature of the relationship from both the petitioner and the respondent clearly, in this case, indicate a romantic nature intended by the respondent and possibly the petitioner in that Deputy Badicke testified that there was an issue of possible wedding rings.  There was, according to the petition, possibly sex that had been involved, his hopes for the future, he’s testified to that, everything he gave Deputy Badicke, including his wish to protect her from what he saw as a harm.

                         I will find that there was a romantic relationship that is the nature of this relationship, however one-sided it was.  During that two years, he did have contact with her at other people’s houses there was contact, and the frequency of the interaction between the parties it seems fairly frequent in the last six months at least.

                         So, I am going to make a finding that it can fit the definition of a family member, in that there’s no evidence to the contrary that she was not at least of 16 years of age.  For the purpose of this statute, the guardianship, however, will rule.  The bottom line, Mr. Tompkins, is I’m going to grant the request, which has been made by the guardian in this case.

                         It may be that Stephanie wishes to attack the guardianship at some time later on a legal basis.  I don’t know.  You don’t know.  You believe she said things to you, not unlike teenagers say about the parents all the time, probably mine, also on given a good day or a bad day that--  you know, they don’t like what their parents did and they’d like to be more free from the restriction.  But, the bottom line is there is a Superior Court guardianship in this case and I am going to sign an order for protection.

                         Now, I cannot order no possession of weapons in this case as a preventive measure.  If, however, the Spokane police, or whoever it is is the keeper of the records of his gun permit, which is--  wishes to pursue that, that’s something that can be done, but if there is a violation of the order, there would automatically if there was a conviction, be a prohibition against possessing firearms.  So, keep that in mind.

                         Mr. Tompkins, I am going to sign an order today.  This will be an order until February 28, 2007 that you are to have no contact with Stephanie DOE or with Charlotte DOE on her behalf.  Personal service was accomplished.  The description that we have here that is part of the petition, I find it reasonable in light of the rural nature of the Oldman Lake area, it will be a three-block restriction from her residence, work place, or school.

                         WEST ALL LIES, that is still a correct address.  This order can be renewed at the one-year mark at about the 11th month if there are any violations or basis to continue the order, and in this case there may be an automatic just based on her incapacitation.  If there have been no violations and he has moved on, I wouldn’t be inclined to extend it another year, especially in light of his employment.

                         I think it’s important that people be able to move on with their life, as unfortunate as it may be for all parties here.  In the meantime, we’ll get copies of this to all parties, Spokane County Sheriff and Police will also receive copies of this order.

                         Now, this is a statewide order and also there’s some allegation of Idaho here.  You can talk with Deputy Badicke about whether or not they wish to send one over to Kootenai County and that--  I believe jurisdiction for any possible other violations from the November incident would lie in Idaho, apparently, and I’m not familiar with their sexual assault laws.  So, I don’t know whether or not incapacity can be something to consider.

                         In the meantime, the finding here will be current or former dating relationship and that he does present a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner on behalf of Stephanie DOE, based on her guardianship and incapacity.

                         That’s the legal language.  Mr. Tompkins--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Do I--

                         THE COURT:  --  it’s time now for you to put it behind you and not have any contact with her at all.   But, I’ll warn you what’s going to happen.

                         She may choose to call you up.  She may choose to get--  she’s not a prisoner.  She’s got a life, she’s going to be allowed to leave the house.  She needs to be able to live her life without having these calls and interference, and you need to move on with your life without police interference in your life, and your safety, and your occupation.  So, here’s what I’m going to tell you.

                         You go some place you didn’t expect her to be, and that’s going to happen.  I guarantee you, a friend’s house, relative, grocery store, restaurant, fast food place, some place you used to see her, and you didn’t know she was going to be there, and she’s there, what do you do?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  You leave.

                         THE COURT:  You leave.  You protect yourself from being arrested.  You make sure you don’t put yourself in a situation where, even if it’s not her, it might be someone else, and gets upset and calls the police, and as her brother, and her mother and her family members should do, they’re trying to protect her.

                         You may completely disagree with their efforts to do that, but you have too much at stake here to lose here to have any further contact with her.  So, for now it’s done, it’s over, it’s a memory, and move on from here.

                         Do you have any questions about what this order means for you?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I understand what it means.  What I’m concerned about is if all the stuff in the order, the actual testimony is false, do I have any recourse with that?

                         THE COURT:  Well, the only recourse you have while there’s a criminal investigation is to present witnesses that can corroborate the other side of the story.  However, this is a civil case, not a criminal case.  So, it’s difficult for you to have a right to force testimony, and the only person here that corroborates this is Stephanie frankly.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  Now, when it comes to any other civil actions involving your employment, I suggest you seek legal advice, and at that point what will happen is they’re going to make some decisions on whether or not this evidence is credible, because this entire case is based on third party hearsay statements by an incapacitated individual who has a disability.  So, that’s something that the State is going to take a look at on the credibility of the witnesses.  Their rules and the rules of administrative law hearings, you absolutely have a right to a hearing to defend yourself.   But, again, anything you say there will be used against you in any possible criminal actions.

                         The only thing that I can even think of to suggest is there is an agreement here between the parties that there not be any further criminal investigation regarding the stalking.  But, that isn’t going to take place for you months down the road until they see how you react to this order.

                         If you honor it and you obey it, and you make a decision that you want to move on with your life, and keep your license, then that’s pretty much where it stands.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I lose--

                         THE COURT:  And, Mr. Naccarato, I assume you would be willing to notify him if there is no--  if there’s an end to a criminal investigation.  Deputy Badicke, would you in this case be willing to notify Mr. Tompkins if the case is not pursued any further by all parties?

                         DEPUTY BADICKE:  That would be up to the detective assigned to the case--

                         THE COURT:  Yes.

                         DEPUTY BADICKE:  --  (inaudible).

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  And they’ll decide whether or not they’re going forward with it at some point if and when--  if you find that you are being called in to have a discussion with the detective, at that point, that’s your position on deciding whether or not you wish to get an attorney on board.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Good luck to all parties.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Thank you, Your Honor.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  Thank you.

  (Court adjourned 10:57 a.m.)

??  +   ??

============================================================== 

Member Name: Annette Susanne Plese                                                                   WSBA Bar #: 20834
Firm or Employer:   Admit Date: 11/8/1991
Address: C/O District Court
1100 W Mallon Ave
Spokane, WA  99260-2043
United States Status: Judicial
Phone: (509) 456-3661 Old # 
Fax: (509) 459-6445  Old # 

AFTERNON SESSION  Court Date is  4-18-2006  With JUDGE ANNETTE S. PLESE  (ASP) on Tape # FTR 3  & the Prosecutor is LYNDON SMITHSON  ( NO PD YET )

April 18, 2006, 1:56 p.m.

(The preceding was not requested to be transcribed.)

(The following proceedings occurred in open court:)

                         THE COURT:  Do I have, is it Randles Tompkins?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  And, Mr. Tompkins, I’m going to need a copy of the ticket on this one, because I don’t have one on this one, either.  I don’t know what happened to any of the tickets.

                         Mr. Tompkins, this is a charge of stalking, a gross misdemeanor charge.  The bailiff’s going to make you a copy of the ticket and give you a copy of it.  Do you understand what they’re accusing you of?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I don’t understand, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Well, the prosecutor’s going to have to read the police report, so I’ll have him read the police report and then we’ll--  you’ll be able to hear what they say you did.

                         MR. REINKEN:  Your Honor, if I may I just have a statement, a probable cause affidavit, if I can approach.   There’s two major files.  I don’t really want to read it.   It’s going to take a while.  You can maybe summarize, if you want to.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Tompkins, it basically says here, they have an affidavit of probable cause that on 3/30/06, they spoke with Deputy Badicke (phonetic), who thought there might be a sexual assault by you, but further information came forward that wasn’t the case.  But they contacted Charlene DOE, that she’s the guardian of Stephanie DOE, due to a head injury she received as a child, she’s very child like and likes attention.

                         She stated that you had been pursuing Stephanie DOE for a number of years, being introduced to her through a mutual acquaintance.  It says in October of 2005, Stephanie was out with Steve and other friends when you showed up.  She gave you her cell number, that she ended up in the hospital, it says here for migraines, that Stephanie told Charlotte she had a boyfriend.  They’d been talking regularly with you, that Charlotte learned that you had showed up at her house on November 2nd, and that you drove Stephanie to Idaho where you had sex with her at the time.

                         It says here her family took turns and kept her in the hospital overnight.  It says that in November

of--  November 8th of ’05, Charlotte DOE was contacted by APS in regards to you making allegations about exploiting Stephanie and being mentally abusive to her and based on her history, it says here on November 19th, she was back in the hospital again.

                         They were taking turns to stay with her all night, that you showed up at the hospital at 6:00 a.m. Stephanie’s brother said you were to stop contacting her, that she’s listed as a vulnerable adult and unable to make decisions for herself, but you were persistent.  It says that--  it says that Stephanie was back in the hospital in January of this year.

                         You showed up at the hospital several times, that Stephanie was confused and requested that you leave at that time.  It says here that they had assumed you left the hospital.  Stephanie was again admitted in February.  Sacred Heart Medical Center said that you were not to have any contact, that they had moved her closer to the elevators--  moved her away from the elevators because you continued to show up.

                         It says that you called three times, but did not speak to her.  Caller ID showed it was you calling.  It says in February, again, you wanted to file a missing police--  missing persons report about her.

                         It says here that APS is claiming mental abuse by you.  That there was a protection order filed on behalf of her, that it was granted.  That was in February of this year.  That she received cards from you on Valentine’s Day and a postcard from you.

                         That on April 12th of this year, it says that the detectives received two get well cards, a Valentine’s Day card, a post card, and an ID tag, and it says here they were all from you.  That at that time that the detectives took possession of those, and at that time, apparently charged you with the stalking after you’d been continually stalking her after you’d been told to stay away from her, that she’s a vulnerable adult.

                         So, Mr. Tompkins, you understand what they’re saying you did?  And at this time they’re asking for a criminal no contact order.

                         Have you been in contact with the family?

                         MR. REINKEN:  Your Honor, I did have contact with Charlotte, the guardian of the victim.  She stated that the defendant will not stop contacting the victim, that--  that Ms. DOE doesn’t really remember the defendant.  Charlotte believes that the defendant is very dangerous and is a predator, and has a pattern of this type of behavior.

                         THE COURT:  So, Mr. Tompkins, this no contact order is a criminal no contact order that says you are not to have any contact with Stephanie DOE.  You’re not to call her, write her, have anything to do with her.  You are not to go within two blocks of her residence or wherever she is.  You stay away from her.

                         Even if she’s saying she wants to have contact, I’m telling you you have any contact with her, you’re going to be back here on new charges, if you assault her in violation of this, it’s a felony.  So, even if she says she wants to have contact, she gets no say.  This is between you and this court.

                         It says here if you have any contact, not only is it a new charge, but it’s a violation of the orders on this, because it’s going to be a condition of your release on this case.  Do have any questions at all about that no contact order?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I haven’t contacted her since I had my trial on February 28th.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  I’m going to have you sign that.  We’re going to give you a copy of it, and what trial was that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I--  what I did on--  yesterday was I came down--

                         THE COURT:  You went to the--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  I came down to Superior Court--

                         THE COURT:  --  civil order.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  to appeal the order, because I can actually prove that the statements are not true, and--

                         THE COURT:  Well, you understand that--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  they arrested me at that time--

                         THE COURT:  --  even on their order, if it gets dropped, this is a separate order that tells you you can’t have any contact.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  So, you want to enter a not guilty plea today?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  I’ll enter a not guilty plea.  I’m going to set you for a court date with me for a pretrial conference.  That’s going to be right here on May 2nd, at 1:30, and does the prosecutor want to be heard?  I show he has nothing else on his record.

                         MR. REINKEN:  He doesn’t, Your Honor.  Just--  we’re concerned about his actions.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Tompkins, I show you haven’t had anything.  You’ve had one criminal charge for a failure to respond to traffic tickets, which was a criminal charge back in 1990, but you have nothing since then.  And I’m willing to give you a shot at showing up for court, but I want to make it very clear, if you have any contact, the family does an affidavit that you had any contact her or tried to contact her, I’m going to put you back in jail and hold you in jail for trial.  So, you don’t have any questions about that no contact order?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I haven’t contacted her.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Are you living at the address on the Inland Empire Highway?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, I am.

                         THE COURT:  If I release you, are you going to show up for that court date?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  You’re going to be released today.  They’ll give you a copy of that no contact order.  I need to see you back on that May 2nd.  If you have not already applied for a public defender when you get out, you need to do that or hire your own attorney.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’d like a public defender if I could have one.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  I’m going to let you out and you have to apply--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I have to apply.

                         THE COURT:  --  second floor of the Public Safety Building, in the probation department.  That’s where they take applications.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Thank you, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  And you’ll be released today.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Now, is the court date here on this paperwork here that I got?

                         THE COURT:  Yeah, May 2nd.  It should be in that little slip.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  Thanks.  We’ll see you back on that date.

                         MR. TOMPKINS: Okay.  Thank you.

 (End of hearing.)

??

=============================================================='

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

RANDLES P. TOMPKINS,
Plaintiff,

vs. No. CV-07-195-FVS

SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
CINDY NORTH-JONES; and OZZIE
KNEZOVICH,
Defendants.

DEPOSITION OF CINDY NORTH-JONES

Deposition upon oral examination of CINDY NORTH-JONES, taken
at the request of the Plaintiff, before Stephanie L. Sage,

CCR No. 2561, a notary public, at the offices the Spokane
County Prosecuting Attorney, 1115 West Broadway Avenue,
Spokane, Washington, commencing or about 2:00 p.m. on June
25, 2008, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: WALL LAW OFFICES

By: Richard D. Wall
423 West First Avenue, #220
Spokane, Washington 99201


FOR THE DEFENDANT: COUNTY OF SPOKANE

OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
By: James Kaufman
1115 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99201

ALSO PRESENT: RANDLES TOMPKINS

STEVE BARTELL

Page # 1

INDEX

EXAMINATION BY MR. WALL............... 3 21

EXHIBITS

(Ex. No. 1, 24 Hour Fitness log,

marked.)............................. 16 23

(Ex. No. 2, citation, marked.)........ 61 20

(Ex. No. 3, citation, marked.)........ 63 2

Page # 2


CINDY NORTH-JONES

called as a witness at the request

of the Plaintiff, having been

first duly sworn according to law,

did testify as follows herein:

MR. KAUFMAN: Before we get going, this is the

deposition taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, with all objections reserved except to the form of

the question and responsiveness of the answer, is how you and

I have generally conducted depositions in the past, Richard.

MR. WALL: That's correct, and that's fine with me.

MR. KAUFMAN: Also, for the record, of course,

Detective North-Jones is being deposed, but the risk manager,

Steve Bartell, and the plaintiff, Randles Tompkins, are

present, and Mr. Tompkins is aware of the fact that any

questions he has will be going through Mr. Wall and not

directly since normally, only reason I'm making more concern

of that is there have been some filings he's had independent

of counsel.

MR. WALL: I understand.

EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALL:

23 Q. Is it North-Jones, is that the name you go by still?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Ms. North-Jones, have you been deposed before?

Page # 3


1 A. Many years ago.

2 Q. Okay. Just go over the basic rules then real quickly.

3 I'm going to ask questions. If you don't understand the

4 question, let me know that. I'll try to ask it a different

5 way or rephrase it. And if there's anything that you need

6 clarified before you answer a question, make sure you do

7 that. If you need to consult with Mr. Kaufman at some point,

8 we can take a break for you to do that. But the rules are

9 that once I ask a question, you have to answer that before

10 you can take a break. Anything else?

11 MR. KAUFMAN: No, I think that's--

12 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Let's just get some background to start

13 with. What's your current occupation?

14 A. I'm a deputy sheriff.

15 Q. How long have you been a deputy sheriff?

16 A. I've been a deputy sheriff with Spokane County since

17 1995. I prior to that was a deputy sheriff with Snohomish

18 County. I've been a deputy sheriff since 1988.

19 Q. Okay. And prior to becoming a deputy sheriff in Spokane

20 County, did you receive any specific training in that regard?

21 A. Yes. I went to the Washington State academy. I did 12

22 weeks.

23 Q. And when did you do that?

24 A. 1988.

25 Q. Okay. That was before you were a deputy in Snohomish

Page # 4


1 County?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. And when you moved from Snohomish County to Spokane

4 County, did you go through any more training at that time?

5 A. You mean through the state academy?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. No.

8 Q. Okay. Other than the 12 weeks, is that what you said you

9 did?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Other than the 12 weeks of that, what other formal

12 training have you had as a law enforcement officer?

13 A. We have quarterly in-service, and now, it's--well, it's

14 still quarterly. And I've had in-services when I worked on

15 the other side, it was quarterly and then it went to monthly.

16 All different types of things, criminal procedures, firearms,

17 defensive tactics, all kinds of different things. I have

18 attended several--I didn't know I needed to bring my resume'.

19 Q. No, you don't need that. But just in general.

20 A. I have had extensive training on domestic violence and

21 stalking for the last, since 1996.

22 Q. Why don't you, since that's what we're here to talk

23 about, why don't you describe for us the training you've had

24 regarding domestic violence first, and then specifically

25 stalking.

Page # 5


1 A. Well, I've attended the District Attorneys National

2 Conference on domestic violence since I've been in the unit,

3 that's been since 1999. That's yearly. I've attended over,

4 probably six stalking trainings put on by the Stalking

5 Resource Center. I've had--I was in D.C. just in January for

6 sexual assault and stalking training. I can send you my

7 resume'.

8 Q. At this point, just what you can recall. What is the

9 Stalking Resource Center?

10 A. It's a nonprofit organization that was, falls under the

11 National Crime Victims Center. And they--it's a resource

12 center. You can go there and get all kinds of information on

13 stalking, whatever state you're in, whether it be Washington,

14 Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, they have all of that. They talk

15 about the dynamics of stalking. You can go onto their

16 website and take a look. You can download forms and

17 brochures from them. They have a national campaign in

18 January on stalking awareness. You can download training

19 information for training people on the dynamics of stalking.

20 Q. Okay. Is that, was that training sponsored by the

21 sheriff's department?

22 A. The trainings, no. They'll pay for me to go, but it's

23 sponsored by the Stalking Resource Center.

24 Q. But the sheriff's department paid for you to go to this

25 training.

Page # 6


1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And is it your understanding that was considered part of

3 your official training as a deputy with the sheriff's

4 department?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And other than what you described so far, did you get any

7 specific training from the sheriff's department regarding

8 domestic violence or stalking?

9 A. From the sheriff's office?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. Can you describe what that has been?

13 A. What that has been? Oh, it's what domestic violence is,

14 the power and control wheel, the mandatory arrest rules--

15 Q. Let me ask the question a different way then to try to

16 get at what I'm looking for. Was this training that was

17 provided by the sheriff's department through the academy, or

18 did the sheriff's department put on classes or seminars of

19 some kind that you attended?

20 A. I had training on domestic violence in the police

21 academy. The sheriff's office does remedial training every

22 so often on domestic violence, kind of a refresher course.

23 And I have presented and done some of the training for the

24 department.

25 Q. Okay. And as far as anything specific to stalking.

Page # 7


1 A. Yes, I've done stalking training.

2 Q. So you have been the trainer at these events that were

3 put on by the sheriff's department.

4 A. I have, yes.

5 Q. Have you also been just a participant, that is, a

6 trainee, so to speak?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Have any idea how many times you've been involved in one

9 of those--do you call them classes?

10 A. Trainings.

11 Q. Just trainings, okay. How many times have you been

12 involved in one of those trainings since you've been with the

13 county?

14 A. You mean where I've actually been--

15 Q. Either--

16 A. A speaker or--

17 Q. Just participated in any way, either just gone to the

18 training or been a presenter.

19 A. Are you talking specifically with the sheriff's office or

20 are you talking specifically about all the trainings I've

21 attended? Because I've attended so many that I can't tell

22 you without my resume'.

23 Q. The ones that have been put on by the sheriff's office

24 specifically relating to domestic violence or stalking.

25 A. Okay, that the sheriff's department has sponsored. I did

Page # 8


1 a class for the reserve academy. I did one for Kootenai

2 County, I believe it's Kootenai County. The sheriff's office

3 hosted it with Kootenai County at the Coeur d'Alene Casino.

4 And I did one just June 13th.

5 Q. Okay. Are you considered to have some expertise in this

6 field within the department?

7 A. You mean--yes.

8 Q. And did that have something to do with why this matter

9 that initially was reported to another deputy was ultimately

10 referred to you?

11 A. I don't know why the deputy himself didn't do the PC

12 affidavit and why he referred.

13 Q. So you never discussed that with either Badicke or

14 another deputy?

15 A. No.

16 Q. We're here to talk about an incident that occurred on

17 April 17, 2006, in which you arrested Mr. Tompkins for

18 stalking.

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And I think you were asked to bring your file with you.

21 A. I did.

22 Q. Do you mind if I take a look at that? Jim, at this point

23 I just want to view it and--

24 MR. KAUFMAN: No problem.

25 MR. WALL: And see if everything in there we've

Page # 9


1 already had a chance to look at.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I don't have any problem. I

3 think there may be some stuff possibly that you and I haven't

4 seen, subject to what we've discussed regarding Badicke's

5 file and--

6 MR. WALL: Well, let me take a quick look at it. And

7 then we'll get on with the questioning.

8 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Okay. Deputy North-Jones, I notice you

9 have what appears to be an evidence envelope.

10 A. Right. I was asked to bring this. I haven't opened it.

11 It's the tape recording that Deputy Badicke had placed on--

12 Q. Okay.

13 MR. KAUFMAN: There has been some confusion as to

14 what tapes--

15 THE WITNESS: Also, with Deputy Badicke's report is a

16 transcription of this same tape.

17 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Okay. But you do have in your file a tape

18 recording that was--

19 A. Yes, but I just picked this up.

20 Q. You didn't have it previously.

21 A. No. Because I got an email about some confusion about a

22 tape and--

23 MR. KAUFMAN: I assume you'd be going into that.

24 Q. (BY MR. WALL) I just want to get it on the record. This

25 would be a tape that was obtained by Deputy Badicke from Mr.

Page # 10


1 Tompkins, is that your understanding?

2 A. That's my understanding based upon Deputy Badicke's

3 report.

4 Q. And how did you obtain that tape? How did you obtain

5 this envelope?

6 A. I went over to property and checked it out, told them I

7 needed it for an upcoming deposition.

8 Q. And when you did that, were there any other materials in

9 property that were listed as items of evidence connected with

10 this case?

11 A. Well, reviewing this report prior to today, I do notice

12 that there's two photo logs from some pictures of Mr.

13 Tompkins' vehicles. I did not have time to get those printed

14 up. 24 hour notice isn't quick enough. So they are

15 available and I can get them.

16 Q. All right. Other than that, the photographs that are on

17 the photo log, were there any other items of evidence that

18 were listed as being connected with this case, to your

19 knowledge?

20 A. You have copies of everything. Do you want to see the

21 originals? I mean, I have the originals--

22 Q. I'm sorry, let me clarify that.

23 A. Of the cars and the necklace--

24 Q. Other than what are copies in here. Is there anything

25 additional?

Page # 11


1 A. No. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, just so I can clarify some

3 things, as I understand, other than a couple of pictures that

4 she has not seen and that I don't believe you or I have seen,

5 and whatever is in this tape, which I think you'll probably

6 be inquiring about, and I learned that she had this in

7 evidence yesterday and I told her to bring it as is so you

8 could see that it's sealed and all that. I think that we

9 have everything that's in the file. Is that your

10 understanding?

11 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding that based upon

12 the report that Randles Tompkins provided transcription of

13 the tape that he gave Deputy Badicke.

14 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Okay. Just again to clarify this, you

15 haven't listened to this tape, I take it.

16 A. No.

17 Q. We don't know if anybody has at this point, or do you

18 know--

19 A. No, I don't know if Deputy Badicke did or not. May I

20 take my--

21 Q. You can have that back, I'm sorry. Can you tell me how

22 you first came into contact with Mr. Tompkins?

23 A. He came over to the regional domestic violence unit and

24 asked to speak to me.

25 Q. Had you spoken with any other deputies regarding Mr.

Page # 12


1 Tompkins before that?

2 A. Talked with Deputy Badicke.

3 Q. And what was the substance of that conversation?

4 A. Deputy Badicke was keeping me kind of abreast of what was

5 going on with this case, and I said sounds like you have

6 enough PC, you know. So he said yeah, I just assumed he

7 would do the PC affidavit, but obviously he didn't. So one

8 time when I was walking through, because he worked the front

9 desk, one time he said I gave Randles Tompkins your name and

10 number so he'll be contacting you. So at this point, I

11 thought I guess I better get involved in this case, so that's

12 when I started my investigation, what little I did.

13 Q. Okay. Did you do some investigation then before you

14 actually met with Mr. Tompkins?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. What did you do?

17 A. I contacted Charlotte DOE and got some information

18 from her.

19 Q. Okay. And that's part of your report, I take it.

20 A. Right.

21 Q. Other than contacting Charlotte DOE, what else did

22 you do?

23 A. After speaking with Charlotte DOE, she brought me

24 in the information I had, this little file here, with cards

25 and such from Randles to Stephanie.

Page # 13


1 Q. And when did she bring those to you?

2 A. I believe it was April 12, 2006.

3 Q. And had you asked her to provide those to you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And had you reviewed any of the reports, or anything that

6 was done by Deputy Badicke before you met with Mr.--

7 A. Badicke.

8 Q. I'm sorry, B-a-d-i-c-k-e, for Badicke. Had you reviewed

9 any other investigation he had done?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. All right. So based upon what you said earlier, would it

12 be fair to say before Mr. Tompkins came to see you on the

13 17th, you already believed there was probably cause to arrest

14 him for stalking?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Tell me what happened when Mr. Tompkins contacted you.

17 A. He came in to the 901 North Monroe into the lobby area.

18 The receptionist called me and told me that he was out there.

19 I walked out there. He tried to show me a piece of paper, 24

20 Hour Fitness that had highlighted schedules on it, saying

21 there's no way he could have been at the hospital on this

22 date, but when you look at the highlighted 24 Hour Fitness,

23 it didn't match. I also told him that he was--I needed--I

24 arrested him.

25 Q. Okay. Did you have any other conversation with him prior

Page # 14


1 to arresting him?

2 A. I advised him of his rights because I already knew that

3 there was probable cause. So before I even talked to him, I

4 advised him of his rights and had him sign a rights card.

5 Q. He came into the office. He was in the waiting area?

6 A. Uh-huh.

7 Q. And you came out to speak to him.

8 A. Uh-huh.

9 Q. Was there any conversation prior to him showing you this

10 24 Hour Fitness log that you talked about?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Or did he show you that immediately?

13 A. No. I read him his rights, I knew who he was. I advised

14 him of his rights and told him I couldn't talk to him until

15 he was advised.

16 Q. So was he under arrest at that time?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Then why did you read him his rights if he wasn't under

19 arrest?

20 A. Because I had probable cause.

21 Q. Well, I understand you believe you had probable cause,

22 but isn't it normal procedure that you don't read a person

23 their rights until you've actually placed them under arrest?

24 A. No. You can read them the rights any time you want just

25 so they have--

Page # 15


1 Q. If you aren't arresting him, he doesn't necessarily have

2 a right to an attorney, does he?

3 A. I already suspected him as a suspect. I had probable

4 cause to arrest him. He had stuff that he wanted to give me,

5 and I advised him that I needed to give him his rights before

6 he could give me anything because he is a suspect in this

7 crime.

8 Q. Okay. Did you advise him he was a suspect?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And he gave you this log or showed you this log.

11 A. Uh-huh.

12 Q. Did you take it from him?

13 A. It's in the report.

14 Q. I'll get my copy of this out so we don't have to use

15 yours.

16 MR. KAUFMAN: Do you want copies of that? Are you

17 planning on marking that?

18 THE WITNESS: You should have it.

19 MR. WALL: That's what my question is. I want to

20 make sure we're talking about the same thing. Actually, Jim,

21 why don't you do that. Have some copies made and we'll come

22 back to it later.

23 (Ex. No. 1, 24 Hour Fitness log, marked.)

24 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Deputy, I'm showing you what's been marked

25 as Exhibit 1. Just for purposes of identification, is this a

Page # 16


1 copy of the 24 Hour Fitness log that you just referred to in

2 response to my previous question?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay, thank you. Tell me what information you had prior

5 to the 17th of April, 2006, when you met with Mr. Tompkins

6 that you believe established probable cause to arrest him for

7 stalking.

8 A. Well, my report pretty much says it all. He had an

9 intimate relationship with Stephanie DOE, I believe is her

10 name. I know the first name is Stephanie.

11 Q. When you say intimate relationship, what do you mean by

12 that term?

13 A. Well, IPV, intimate partner. Intimate means they're in a

14 dating relationship, there was allegations of sexual contact,

15 there's the expressions of love. That leads me to believe

16 that they're in an intimate relationship.

17 Q. What I'm trying to clarify is, when you use the term

18 intimate relationship, you're not necessarily referring to

19 sexually intimate, but something more along the lines of a

20 romantic relationship. Am I understanding you correctly?

21 A. Romantic, but there was allegations of sexual contact as

22 well, which again confirmed to me that they were in a dating

23 relationship.

24 Q. But it wouldn't be necessary for two people to have a

25 sexual relationship to have what you call an intimate

Page # 17


1 relationship. Is my understanding correct?

2 A. Repeat that, please.

3 Q. Okay. By your definition of an intimate relationship,

4 it's not required that people have a sexual relationship.

5 Just a, what others might call a romantic relationship. Is

6 that correct?

7 A. Correct. Romantic, dating.

8 Q. All right. So that's one of the circumstances. What

9 else?

10 A. Then there was the allegations that she had sex, she's a

11 vulnerable adult, parents were concerned that Mr. Tompkins

12 was possibly a predator of vulnerable adults. He had filed

13 APS report against Charlotte DOE because they have made

14 it quite clear he was not to have any contact with her. They

15 kept her from having contact with him. He filed the APS

16 report. During this APS, Adult Protective Services claim,

17 she discovered that there had been other people that he has

18 targeted. So there was those concerns. The fact that he

19 hadn't had any contact with Stephanie shortly after the

20 incident, which I believe was like the 8th of November was

21 probably the last. He ended up learning that she was in the

22 hospital on the 19th of November, which means how did he find

23 out she was there if he's had no contact for two weeks with

24 her. Then there was the February, sending the cards. Prior

25 to that, he had tried to send certified letters to Stephanie.

Page # 18


1 They were rejected. He sent three of them, and I believe in

2 his own statement he admits to that. So that's all stalking

3 behavior. She has had no contact with him. He is making

4 every possible effort to have contact with her by calling

5 her, trying to get her to appear at these hearings with the

6 hopes of seeing her. So by the time this came to me, when I

7 looked at all of Deputy Badicke's information that he had of

8 all of the different people, I know there was some stalking.

9 There may have been some sexual misconduct. Nothing that

10 actually could be substantiated due to Stephanie's

11 vulnerability.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. You only need two or more incidents in the state of

14 Washington to constitute stalking.

15 Q. That's my next question. What are the elements of

16 stalking in the state of Washington?

17 A. I don't have the exact quote, but it's a course of

18 conduct. Course of conduct only needs to be two or more in

19 the state of Washington. That would put a reasonable person

20 in fear.

21 Q. Anything else?

22 A. Well, I can pull the statute up for you, if you want to

23 give me a minute.

24 Q. Sure, I have a copy of it here if you'd like to look at

25 it. Before we do, did you review the statute before you

Page # 19

1 decided to arrest Mr. Tompkins?

2 A. No, I didn't.

3 Q. Okay. Can you recall what you had in mind at the time

4 you arrested Mr. Tompkins as to what evidence was in your

5 possession that would satisfy the evidence of stalking?

6 A. I had Badicke's report, I have the stuff from Charlotte

7 DOE, which is the necklace, the cards, I have the

8 statement from her son--maybe it was her husband, or the

9 brother. The brother, that he showed up at the hospital

10 while Stephanie was in the hospital. I had more than two

11 incidents to warrant the arrest for stalking.

12 Q. When you say incidents, what do you mean by an incident?

13 A. Okay. It's a course of conduct. He was told he was not

14 to have any contact with Stephanie. He made every effort to

15 have contact with Stephanie. He tried calling her. He

16 showed up at the hospital unannounced twice. He tried to

17 send her letters, certified letters three times. They were

18 refused.

19 Q. Sorry, let me interrupt--

20 A. In February, he sends her--

21 Q. You're not responding to the question. The question is

22 what--when you use the term incident, what are you referring

23 to?

24 A. I'm referring to him showing up at the hospital, that

25 would be one incident. Him sending the certified letters

Page # 20


1 three times is another incident. That's three different

2 incidents. That's four now. There's the incident where he

3 sends a Valentine's Day card, he sends a post card, he sends

4 another card, get well card. Those are all incidents.

5 Q. Okay. So would it be fair to say, when you use the term

6 incident, you mean either a contact or attempt to contact--

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. In this case--

9 A. A course of conduct, yes.

10 Q. Let's back up. We haven't got to course of conduct yet.

11 We're talking about your definition of an incident, because

12 you've used that term several times. I want to make sure we

13 understand what you mean. You mean an incident is conduct by

14 Mr. Tompkins either contacting or attempting to contact

15 Stephanie DOE.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. So you had evidence of attempts by Mr. Tompkins to

18 contact Stephanie DOE?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. What other evidence did you have to establish probable

21 cause to believe that he had committed stalking?

22 A. It's a course of conduct. His course of conduct leads me

23 to believe, based upon these incidents, that's a course of

24 conduct. There's several courses of conduct where he's

25 trying to make contact with her and it's putting everybody in

Page # 21


1 that family in fear.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. Now, because he is unable to locate her, he starts making

4 reports to APS, to the sheriff's office. That's how Deputy

5 Badicke got this information, because he came to file a

6 missing person's complaint.

7 Q. That's correct. He came to report information that he

8 thought Ms. S. DOE was possibly being abused, correct?

9 A. Not--missing.

10 Q. Or missing. You're not aware of any allegations that she

11 was being financially abused possibly?

12 A. Well, later on there was that, but not when he first

13 comes in.

14 Q. Okay. So we have contacts, attempt to contact by Mr.

15 Tompkins, correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. And in addition to that, you have what, I'm trying to

18 sort this out, you made a statement that the whole family was

19 in fear.

20 A. Correct. I probably should have charged him with three

21 counts of stalking, but I didn't.

22 Q. What evidence did you have that the family was afraid?

23 A. What evidence did I have?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Their statements and their demeanor.

Page # 22


1 Q. Have you met with any of them in person?

2 A. Just Charlotte.

3 Q. Charlotte indicated to you she was afraid?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Afraid of what?

6 A. She was afraid of what Randles would do to them or their

7 daughter. Mostly their daughter. They were fearing that he

8 would kidnap their daughter or take her out of the country or

9 harm her in some way.

10 Q. Did she tell you Mr. Tompkins had threatened to do any of

11 those things?

12 A. No.

13 Q. What did she tell you or what other evidence did you have

14 that made you believe her fear of those things happening was

15 reasonable?

16 A. Because of his continuing to try to make contact with

17 Stephanie.

18 Q. Okay. So the fact that he was making repeated attempts

19 to contact her was the basis for Ms. C. DOE's fear?

20 A. Correct. People don't understand the dynamics of

21 stalking and the fear elements that come when a person

22 continues to try to contact them.

23 Q. Okay. So that was all you needed, was repeated attempts

24 to contact. And Ms. C. DOE's statement that those

25 repeated attempts to contact her daughter made her fearful?

Page # 23


1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Have you ever discussed this theory of stalking with

3 anybody?

4 A. It's a course of conduct. I've been trained.

5 Q. That's not my question. My question is, have you ever

6 discussed this theory of stalking with anyone?

7 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm going to object to the form of the

8 question. I'm not sure what you mean by theory of stalking.

9 I think you two are--

10 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Let me put it, a little more context to

11 it. If I'm understanding what you're saying, any time

12 somebody makes repeated attempts to contact someone, that's

13 enough to constitute stalking as long as the person who is

14 being contacted feels afraid.

15 A. To some degree, yes, that's right.

16 Q. Well, without qualifying it, is that yes or no. Is that

17 sufficient to establish stalking?

18 A. It's enough probable cause. I have enough evidence based

19 upon--

20 Q. Let's go back to my last--yes is your answer to that

21 question?

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Can you repeat the question?

23 Q. (BY MR. WALL) The question is, any time someone makes

24 repeated attempts to contact another person, is that by

25 itself sufficient to establish probable cause to believe they

Page # 24


1 are committing the crime of stalking, so long as the person

2 being contacted says they're afraid?

3 A. Well, they don't even have to say they're afraid. They

4 have to show fear by their demeanor, shaking and all that.

5 Because most of the time, they can't tell you what they're

6 afraid of. They're just afraid. She could easily tell me

7 she was afraid. She was afraid he was going to take their

8 daughter, kidnap her, harm her.

9 Q. And that was based upon the fact that he tried to contact

10 their daughter. Correct?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. And what ways did she describe he had attempted to

13 contact her?

14 A. I think this has been asked and answered.

15 Q. Which ways that you have described to me already would

16 constitute a basis for someone thinking that the person

17 intends to kidnap someone?

18 A. Okay. The relationship ended in November of 2005.

19 Q. Okay. What do you mean when you say the relationship

20 ended?

21 A. He was told the relationship was over.

22 Q. By whom?

23 A. Well, one of the times, my understanding is from

24 Stephanie when she was in the hospital. By the brother, by

25 the mother, by the father. So he's been told, his behavior

Page # 25


1 is unwanted.

2 Q. Did you speak to the brother?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Did you speak to the father?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did you speak to Stephanie?

7 A. No, but when it came time for court I would have.

8 Q. Well, we're not talking about court, we're talking about

9 probable cause at this point. So I'm asking--

10 A. I had a statement from Charlotte DOE, which is

11 enough, there's enough witnesses and things that, to add to

12 that.

13 Q. Well--

14 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, some of your questions are

15 causing, calling for conclusions of law. She's qualified as

16 an expert in this area, so I'm not objecting to them. But I

17 think--

18 MR. WALL: Well, if she wants to claim she's an

19 expert, that's fine. I don't know what the objection would

20 be then. Actually, my last--

21 MR. KAUFMAN: I think some of them have been asked

22 and answered.

23 MR. WALL: My last question was who she talked to.

24 That was all. If you talked to Stephanie.

25 A. Deputy Badicke is the one that talked to different

Page # 26


1 people, if you read his reports. I didn't reinvestigate his

2 work.

3 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Do you know if Deputy Badicke spoke to

4 anyone other than Charlotte DOE--

5 A. I can't answer for Deputy Badicke. I can only tell you

6 what's in his report.

7 Q. You reviewed his report. Does his report indicate he's

8 spoken to anyone other than Charlotte DOE, or even if

9 he spoke to Charlotte DOE?

10 A. He's got all kinds of information. It look like he's

11 gotten a lot of it from Randles Tompkins and Charlotte

12 DOE and Tom DOE, which, I believe, is the dad.

13 And he lists a bunch of different witnesses on his, Sue

14 Griner. I can go through it all if you'd like, but I know

15 you have the same information. If you'd like me to go

16 through it for you, I sure can.

17 Q. What I'm looking for is what you knew. You reviewed the

18 report. What was in that report that you relied upon in

19 determining that there was probable cause to arrest Mr.

20 Tompkins?

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. If anything.

23 A. Well, there is all of these little things, the

24 transcription of the tapes where there's the I love you's,

25 that shows you her vulnerability is very much there.

Page # 27


1 Q. Let me stop you there for a moment. You determined that

2 Stephanie DOE was vulnerable in some way?

3 A. Well, when I talked with Charlotte DOE, I could

4 hear Stephanie asking questions. Even though they were asked

5 and answered, she kept asking. She had like not a lot of

6 long-term memory or short-term memory. So there was that.

7 And the fact that just reading some of the transcription that

8 he provided to Deputy Badicke, there's--you can tell there's

9 some vulnerability, and the fact that in part of all this

10 paperwork there is the fact where Charlotte is the guardian

11 based upon the fact that her daughter had a head injury that

12 has caused her to become a vulnerable adult. And the

13 paperwork states that she can act upon her daughter's behalf

14 in what she feels is safe and unsafe situations because her

15 daughter is unable to recognize that.

16 Q. Okay. Since you brought that up, was that an important

17 consideration for you in making a determination of probable

18 cause in this case?

19 A. Probable cause was based upon his behavior towards,

20 wanting repeated contact towards Stephanie when he had been

21 notified that it was not wanted and it, he had to stop. The

22 behavior did not stop, and he continued, and he still

23 continues.

24 Q. He still continues?

25 A. Well, yes, by writing all these papers to people and

Page # 28


1 trying to fight the courts and the protection orders when he

2 tried to get those recalled.

3 Q. Okay. So you're telling me that, in your opinion as a

4 police officer, defending yourself in court is a form of

5 stalking?

6 A. Defending myself in court?

7 Q. For a person to defend themselves in court in a civil

8 action can be a form of stalking?

9 A. In certain cases. He can defend himself all he wants.

10 I'm not saying he can't do that.

11 Q. Well, you just said he was continuing.

12 A. I do--

13 Q. That's what I'm asking you to explain, that statement.

14 A. You just got a copy of a report that had taken place,

15 which I just, when I'm reviewing this case for this

16 deposition, I ended up finding that report as well. It's a

17 course of conduct. There's a lot of coincidence that occurs

18 with stalking. In the paperwork that Randles provides, he

19 talks about--he's got things highlighted about Stephanie.

20 And I think if he, in his mind, if he could see her again, it

21 would all be wonderful. I just--it's stereotypical. That's

22 all I'm saying.

23 Q. Okay. But you said he's continuing. He's continuing to

24 do what?

25 A. I believe he's still trying to make contact with

Page # 29


1 Stephanie.

2 Q. Do you have any evidence, are you aware of any

3 information--

4 A. The only thing new that I have is that report.

5 Q. Does this indicate that he's tried to contact Stephanie

6 in any way?

7 A. No, just suspicious circumstances.

8 MR. KAUFMAN: For the record, Counsel and Cindy both

9 referred to a report. Is this the document that you were

10 talking about?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes.

12 MR. KAUFMAN: It's a--

13 THE WITNESS: It's a suspicious circumstance report

14 basically that Charlotte DOE, somebody was pounding on

15 her door and it freaked her out and scared her, which is--so

16 she called the police. But the person had left when she said

17 she was calling the police.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: It includes a public disclosure request

19 to the City of Spokane filed by Randles dated April 14, 2008?

20 THE WITNESS: Well, when I was getting ready for

21 this, I reviewed everything in regards. So yes, there was

22 two new incidents with his name on it. So that's why I

23 pulled them and brought them here. And again, that's why I

24 think that there's still some indications that he still has a

25 desire to connect with Stephanie.

Page # 30


1 Q. (BY MR. WALL) You don't have any information that--

2 A. No, because I haven't contacted her. I didn't follow up

3 on this. This wasn't assigned to me. This was just

4 something that I brought for you guys for this deposition.

5 Q. So last question was--

6 A. You keep trying to hammer me as to why I felt I had

7 probable cause.

8 Q. That's what we're here to find out. That's what this

9 whole deposition is about.

10 A. And I keep telling you and you still don't want to hear

11 it.

12 Q. No, I just want to make sure I have it all.

13 MR. KAUFMAN: Shall we take a break at this point?

14 Cindy, would you like to take a break?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, maybe I need a break.

16 (Recess.)

17 Q. (BY MR. WALL) We're back on the record after a short

18 break. Deputy, I'm going to back up a little bit and get

19 back to when you met Mr. Tompkins and he came to see you, the

20 date of his arrest.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. He was, he came to the domestic, regional domestic

23 violence offices over in the Monroe building?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you met him in the waiting area?

Page # 31


1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is that where the questioning took place?

3 A. I don't recall.

4 Q. Do you recall if you took him to your office at all?

5 A. I don't have an office. I have a cubicle.

6 Q. Were there any other officers present when you

7 interviewed Mr. Tompkins at that time?

8 A. I don't recall that either. I recall him and I recall

9 the receptionist behind the desk. I did have assistance when

10 I placed him under arrest.

11 Q. So there was another officer present when you arrested

12 him?

13 A. I don't recall. I mean, we have a lobby, and then the

14 doors open, which I know the door behind me was left open.

15 And in that area that would be my, other--there would be

16 other police officers in that area.

17 Q. The reason I ask is because you just said you had

18 assistance when you arrested him.

19 A. Pretty sure, because we usually don't make an arrest

20 without having somebody there.

21 Q. Would that have been one of the officers next door?

22 A. I'm assuming it was probably Kris Thompson.

23 Q. And is he a deputy?

24 A. No, he's a detective.

25 Q. Sheriff?

Page # 32


1 A. Sheriff's detective.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: That's K-r-i-s, isn't it?

3 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Kris Thompson. Let's get back to

4 something we sort of were getting into before and then we got

5 away from it. You were going to tell me what the elements of

6 stalking are, and you said you might need to refer to the

7 statute. If you want to do that now, that would be fine with

8 me. But I'd like you to tell me what the elements of

9 stalking are in Washington State.

10 A. It's a course of conduct that would put a reasonable

11 person in fear. Course of conduct only needs two or more

12 incidents. And I know that the statute is a little bit

13 longer, but the content is, it's a course of conduct that

14 would put a reasonable person in fear. And the course of

15 conduct is usually two or more incidents.

16 Q. Any other elements that you're aware of?

17 A. Him claiming that he didn't know he was causing them to

18 be placed in fear is not a defense. So--I mean, I didn't

19 brush up on the statute before coming here. I brushed up on

20 my report.

21 Q. Well, at the time you arrest somebody, you need to have

22 probable cause, correct?

23 A. I had probable cause.

24 Q. That was not my question. My question is, before you

25 arrest someone, you need to have probable cause, correct?

Page # 33


1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. To have probable cause, you need to have evidence,

3 isn't that correct? Just yes or no. You need evidence,

4 correct?

5 A. I need proof a crime was committed. That doesn't mean I

6 have to have evidence. Evidence, I have witnesses, I had

7 documents, I had--

8 Q. If you don't mind, let me try to ask a question and just

9 give me the answer to just the question. And this will go a

10 little better. Do you or do you not need to have evidence

11 before you can have probable cause?

12 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm going to object just to the form of

13 the question. Evidence is probably a legal term. But with

14 that--

15 MR. WALL: She's a police officer, a law enforcement

16 officer. She ought to know what evidence means to her.

17 A. Well, sometimes evidence is, I do have evidence. This is

18 what evidence is, okay? I also have testimony of a witness.

19 That, also, I have documentation from a report.

20 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Let me rephrase the question a little bit

21 then.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, I'm wondering--physical

23 evidence--

24 Q. (BY MR. WALL) I'm not limiting it to any particular kind

25 of evidence. But you have to have more than a gut feeling or

Page # 34


1 your own opinion. You have to have some evidence, witness

2 statements, physical evidence, something you can say

3 establishes the element of the offense. Isn't that correct?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And the evidence, proof as you say, has to establish

6 every one of the elements that's necessary to establish the

7 crime, isn't that correct?

8 A. All I have to do is prove probable cause. I don't need

9 beyond a reasonable doubt.

10 Q. Nobody has mentioned anything about reasonable doubt.

11 A. Well, probable cause is a lot less than reasonable doubt.

12 So I don't know where you're trying to go here.

13 Q. Well, again, I'm just trying to ask a yes or no question,

14 all right?

15 A. Okay.

16 Q. You need to have evidence that would establish every one

17 of the elements that's necessary to commit the offense, isn't

18 that correct? It can't be part of it. If there are three

19 elements of a crime, and you have elements of one, you don't

20 have probable cause, isn't that correct?

21 A. Can you rephrase? You're rambling and I'm confused.

22 Q. Okay. Then you describe to me, based on your training,

23 what you, as a law enforcement officer, are required to have

24 in order to say you have probable cause to arrest someone for

25 an offense.

Page # 35


1 A. Testimony of witnesses, physical evidence, victim

2 statements, I think that--that a crime was committed.

3 Q. Okay. When you say that the crime was committed, how do

4 you determine that the crime was committed?

5 A. By talking with witnesses, by gathering evidence.

6 Q. We've got--let's assume you've got some evidence. How do

7 you make the determination that that evidence establishes

8 probable cause?

9 A. How do I make that determination?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Are we talking in general or are we talking in this case?

12 Q. Let's start with in general.

13 A. Well, based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the

14 evidence. That's how you determine if there's enough

15 probable cause to make the arrest. I guess I don't get what

16 it is you're wanting me to say.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. Because, I mean, I'm confused here as to where you're

19 trying to go. I mean--probable--

20 Q. I'm not trying--

21 A. I was in academy 20 years ago, I don't have my little--

22 Q. When was the last time you received training regarding

23 probable cause?

24 A. I'm sure 20 years ago, but we refresh ourselves by

25 looking at the RCW's all the time. Probable cause is much

Page # 36


1 smaller than anything else.

2 Q. Okay. So since the academy, you haven't been to any

3 classes or seminars or any kind of training put on by the

4 sheriff's department that are sort of refresher courses on

5 what constitutes probable cause for an arrest. Would that be

6 fair to say? Is that fair or not?

7 A. Repeat the question.

8 Q. Okay. In the last 20 years, you haven't received any

9 remedial training or refresher training or any kind of

10 training regarding in general what constitutes probable cause

11 to make an arrest.

12 A. Well, you know, by the time I leave here, you're going to

13 have me so confused of what probable cause is--

14 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, you've already asked and

15 answered about the remedial training. Now you're trying to

16 pin it down as to whether there was specific training on

17 probable cause that she would remember.

18 MR. WALL: Yes, that's what I'm asking.

19 MR. KAUFMAN: Do you understand the question?

20 THE WITNESS: He wants to know if I've had any

21 further training on probable cause since the academy.

22 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Since the--not the sole focus--

23 A. Not on probable cause sole focus. We get updates on

24 criminal procedure, LED's, based on what comes out of the

25 Supreme Court and all that, we get updates on that all the

Page # 37


1 time. And I have to take tests on Terry stops and all that.

2 We had to do that--

3 MR. KAUFMAN: For the record, can you say what the

4 LED's are, I don't--

5 THE WITNESS: Law Enforcement Digest.

6 MR. KAUFMAN: Put out by the Attorney General, I

7 believe.

8 THE WITNESS: Washington State Criminal Justice

9 Training Center, but it's similar to what attorneys get with

10 whatever they get. I point to you because you're an

11 attorney.

12 Q. (BY MR. WALL) All right. I'm sorry if this is confusing

13 or difficult, but I need an answer to this question. I'm

14 going to keep going until I get one. Let's try to use a

15 concrete example. That maybe would help. Someone comes to

16 you and they want to report a theft, okay?

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. And they give you some information.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. Their statement, maybe they give you some physical

21 evidence of some kind. How do you determine whether or not

22 the information they are giving you, the evidence that

23 they're giving you is sufficient to establish probable cause

24 that somebody committed a theft? How do you go through that

25 process? What do you do?

Page # 38


1 A. With the theft?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Well, usually if it's a theft, there's videotapes,

4 there's an independent security person who saw them stuff it

5 in their shirt. Based upon that, you have enough probable

6 cause to make the arrest.

7 Q. Let's assume there's no videotape. Okay?

8 A. So--

9 Q. What would you compare the evidence to to see if it meets

10 the standard of probable cause?

11 A. I've been a DB for nine years. For stalking and domestic

12 violence, it's who the primary aggressor is, marks, bruises

13 and abrasions, how many telephone calls have occurred to make

14 it telephone harassment, all of that, you have evidence to

15 substantiate.

16 Q. I thought maybe theft would be an easy one, but since

17 it's not, let's go on to stalking, okay?

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. You've said that stalking is a course of conduct that

20 would put a reasonable person in fear.

21 A. It is a course of conduct, yes.

22 Q. And I think I asked you if there's anything more than

23 that required--

24 A. Well, there is--

25 Q. That's what I want to get at. What's required in

Page # 39


1 addition to that?

2 A. I don't have the statute in front of me to know.

3 Q. Okay. So--

4 A. It's a big section about this big, but the key element is

5 it's a course of conduct.

6 Q. Okay. That's a key element. Let's--at least that's your

7 testimony and we'll assume that for a moment. Do you have to

8 have something more than that before you can make an arrest?

9 A. You're not going to let me review that so I can answer,

10 are you?

11 Q. Well, I will.

12 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, I think she's been asked and

13 answered that a number of times. I don't--I think she's told

14 you for the record that she doesn't have the statute

15 memorized, and I think we all agree--

16 MR. WALL: Let's take a break and let her review the

17 statute.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem with that.

19 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Let's go directly to the--

20 A. There's two elements. One is a course of conduct.

21 Q. I have a copy of--I don't care to make a copy.

22 A. There's two parts to it, you need another one. You have

23 to have the definitions or you don't have it all. Maybe that

24 has both parts there.

25 Q. Does that have the definitions for the stalking statute?

Page # 40


1 A. It has the stalking statute. No, no definitions. You

2 can go to the--

3 MR. KAUFMAN: RCW 46. I'll go up and run one off.

4 THE WITNESS: And it is a course of conduct that

5 puts--and the defense, I think I covered that. Person being

6 harassed and followed, in fear that the stalker intends to

7 injure the person or the property of the person.

8 MR. WALL: Let's wait until Jim gets back and we'll

9 do this on the record.

10 (Discussion off the record.)

11 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Deputy, we're back on the record after a

12 short break in which Mr. Kaufman kindly provided us with

13 copies of two statutes, 9A.46.110 and 10.14.020, these are

14 both WAC's. And you've had a chance to review those during

15 the break, is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Now, after having reviewed those, I'm going to ask you

18 again, having reviewed that, does it at all change your

19 answer to my previous question as to what the elements of

20 stalking are?

21 A. For the statute, it's repeatedly harassing or follows.

22 Do you want me to read all the description?

23 Q. I'm asking based upon your review of the statute. I'm

24 not asking you to read it. Based on your review of the

25 statute, if you would define for me what the elements of

Page # 41


1 stalking are.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: I guess I'm going to object to the form

3 of the question as a legal, calls for a legal conclusion.

4 But go ahead, you can answer if you understand the question,

5 exactly what he's talking about. Go ahead and answer it.

6 A. Repeat your question.

7 Q. (BY MR. WALL) What are the elements of stalking?

8 A. Elements of stalking are without lawful authority and

9 under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of

10 another crime--you don't want me to read the statute, but you

11 want me to point out the elements, is that what your--

12 Q. Well, if that's difficult for you at this point, let's

13 back up a little bit. You didn't review the statute before

14 you arrested Mr. Tompkins, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. But you must have had in mind what the elements of this

17 offense are in order to establish that you had probable

18 cause, correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. So now, after reviewing the statute, does that help

21 refresh your memory as to what you had in mind at the time

22 you arrested Mr. Tompkins as to what the elements of stalking

23 are or were at that time?

24 A. He had been told that he was not to have any contact with

25 her. He was still trying to make contact with her. Sending

Page # 42


1 her cards, attempting phone calls, sending letters that were

2 being rejected back. It's a course of conduct that caused

3 the people to feel some fear. And him showing up at

4 unexpected places, wondering how did that happen, how did he

5 know. They assumed he was either following or was keeping

6 tabs on her through maybe mutual friends or through who

7 knows. But there's that course of conduct, and stalking is

8 kind of a coincidence-type of crime where he's showing up at

9 the hospital, how did he know she was at the hospital. So

10 there's that following element.

11 Q. Anything else that you had in mind at the time you

12 arrested Mr. Tompkins?

13 A. I had the report of--

14 Q. Not talking about the evidence, I'm talking about the

15 elements of the crime. What the elements of the crime were.

16 A. I believe I covered it.

17 Q. Okay. And you mentioned in answer to that question that

18 people put people in fear, his conduct was putting people in

19 fear?

20 A. A reasonable person in the same situation would

21 experience under the circumstances.

22 Q. I'm asking you about your previous answer to my question,

23 okay? You said that he had done some things that caused

24 people to be afraid or to be in fear.

25 A. Correct.

Page # 43


1 Q. What people are you referring to when you make that

2 statement?

3 A. The C. & T. DOE. Stephanie at one moment would be afraid,

4 and at other times wouldn't be, because of her vulnerable

5 adult status.

6 Q. Okay. So let me ask this question then, see if we can

7 get down to something fairly direct. At the time you

8 arrested Mr. Tompkins, did you feel it was necessary to

9 establish that Stephanie DOE was in some way afraid of

10 him?

11 A. Her mother said she was at one point. There are times

12 when Stephanie would be afraid and not afraid. If we're

13 trying to determine whether I had probable cause, it was

14 determined the next day in court that there was probable

15 cause.

16 Q. That's not what we're here to talk about, though. We're

17 here to talk with your decision to arrest Mr. Tompkins. So

18 what happened the next day is not at issue here.

19 A. Okay. But you're trying to say, from what you're trying

20 to get me to say is what my mind was in regards to probable

21 cause.

22 Q. Exactly.

23 A. I am trying to explain that to you, but you're not liking

24 the answers. In my mind, he met all of the elements of

25 stalking, okay? I had in my mind enough probable cause to

Page # 44


1 make the arrest based upon the fact that I had testimony,

2 letters, cards, a report, all kinds of information. So in my

3 mind, I had probable cause to make the arrest on Mr.

4 Tompkins.

5 Q. Okay. I know that. And that's not what I'm asking.

6 A. But you're still beating me up on it. I'm trying to

7 figure out where you're going with this.

8 Q. My question, my last question was, did you feel it was

9 necessary to establish that Stephanie DOE was afraid of

10 Mr. Tompkins?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Why not?

13 A. Her mother told me she was afraid when I was talking with

14 her mom on the telephone. I could hear Stephanie say oh,

15 yeah, I vaguely remember hearing some things like that.

16 She's in and out of--like a roller coaster. And you can see,

17 based upon--I mean, trying to prove her as a vulnerable

18 adult, you can read the things in the transcripts that he

19 provided.

20 Q. When Ms. C. DOE told you that sometimes Stephanie was

21 afraid of Mr. Tompkins, did she tell you what she was afraid

22 he would do?

23 A. There was mention of a weapon. And Stephanie was afraid

24 of Mr. Tompkins when, because of the gun. There was a

25 mention of the gun in the van when they went to Coeur

Page # 45


1 d'Alene.

2 Q. And who mentioned that?

3 A. Stephanie told her mom.

4 Q. And you got that information from Charlotte, and it's

5 also in Badicke's report. So she said there was some fear

6 about a gun?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. Did she say what Stephanie was afraid was going to happen

9 as a result of this, supposedly Mr. Tompkins having a gun?

10 A. You'll have to ask Charlotte on that.

11 Q. You didn't.

12 A. I didn't. I mean, I know she expressed concerns for her

13 daughter. She said her daughter at times was fearful of Mr.

14 Tompkins. One of those times was being in the hospital when

15 he showed up to her hospital room.

16 Q. Based on the information you have, who had witnessed that

17 incident where Mr. Tompkins came to the hospital?

18 A. My understanding, he showed up a couple times. I'd have

19 to refer to my report, but--

20 Q. Okay, go ahead.

21 A. Or to the reports on one of the incidents. Mark K. DOE,

22 Stephanie's brother, was at the hospital. And then on one in

23 January, that's when he showed up and Stephanie is confused

24 and requests that he leave, but he doesn't leave. So she

25 leaves and goes into the rest room.

Page # 46


1 Q. And that information was obtained from where?

2 A. Charlotte DOE.

3 Q. Okay. Fair to say all this information was obtained from

4 Charlotte DOE?

5 A. Most of it, yes.

6 Q. Let me ask you to look again at the statute. Do you

7 still have a copy of that?

8 MR. KAUFMAN: By the statute, Counsel, you mean 110?

9 MR. WALL: Let's start with that.

10 Q. (BY MR. WALL) All right. And we'll just talk about it

11 now specifically. Under 110(1), it says a person commits a

12 crime of stalking without lawful authority and under

13 circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another

14 crime, he intentionally repeatedly harasses or repeatedly

15 follows another person. Let's assume for the moment that

16 that element is, we're not discussing that element for the

17 moment. I want to talk about (b) right now.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear

20 that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person

21 or property of the person or of another person. Correct, is

22 that what it says?

23 A. Uh-huh.

24 Q. What evidence did you have at the time you arrested Mr.

25 Tompkins that Stephanie DOE was in fear that he was going

Page # 47


1 to injure her, someone else, the property of someone else?

2 A. Repeat your question?

3 Q. What evidence did you have at the time you arrested Mr.

4 Tompkins that Stephanie DOE was afraid that he was going

5 to injure her, injure another person, injure her property or

6 injure the property of another person?

7 A. He showed up while she was in the hospital and she voiced

8 fear to her mom, and to others.

9 Q. What fear did she voice?

10 A. This is the problem with the crime of stalking, is

11 because everybody wants them to say fear. And the problem is

12 they can't say what it is that they're afraid of. But

13 they've changed their behavior, they've changed their things.

14 She's secluded. She's changed her phone number, she's

15 protected by her family. She's got a protection order now

16 against Mr. Tompkins. These are all elements of fear. So

17 they're afraid something is going to happen. What exactly is

18 going to happen is hard to say. Yes, maybe he's going to

19 injure their property. Maybe he's going to kidnap her.

20 Maybe he's going to hurt her. They're afraid those are the

21 things that are going to happen. Will they say that? Yeah,

22 they're afraid he's going to hurt me, or I'm afraid because

23 he's going to kidnap me, or yeah, I'm afraid he's going to

24 rape me or yeah, I'm afraid he's going to do something. It's

25 usually yeah, I'm afraid he's going to do something. What is

Page # 48


1 he going to do. I don't know what he's going to do, but I'm

2 afraid he's going to do something. They don't say I'm afraid

3 he's going to hurt my car, or they don't say he's going to

4 hurt me. Sometimes they'll say that, but--the family was

5 afraid that he was going to do harm to her. The family had

6 told me that. They based that upon what Stephanie said at

7 the time, when she's in and out. As you know by reading any

8 of these reports, Stephanie has a lot of health issues.

9 She's a vulnerable adult. She gets confused. Her--based

10 upon all of this, there's court documents in all of these

11 files that Charlotte is the guardian. The judge realized

12 that Stephanie is a vulnerable adult. If the parents and

13 everyone else around is afraid, that's enough per this

14 statute for me to have probable cause to make the arrest.

15 Which I did.

16 Q. And that's your opinion, where you have a vulnerable

17 adult, the person who is actually placed in fear could be

18 someone other than the person who is being stalked?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Okay. Have you ever discussed that with anyone in the

21 department?

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Which department?

23 MR. WALL: Sheriff's department.

24 A. No. But we have the rape statute where there's a person

25 who is a vulnerable adult and somebody takes advantage of

Page # 49


1 them, it's considered statutory rape. So it's like--I don't

2 see why--you're trying to say that--

3 Q. (BY MR. WALL) I'm asking questions. My question is, did

4 you talk about this with anybody, this idea that if someone

5 is a vulnerable adult and has a guardian, then the guardian

6 can stand in the place of the victim. Did you ever talk

7 about that with a superior or anybody else at the department?

8 A. No.

9 Q. So your basis for believing that can be done under the

10 statute is your own opinion, correct?

11 A. It's based upon the information in the report and it's

12 based upon the family's fear. It's a reasonable person. We

13 know Stephanie is not reasonable.

14 Q. You know Stephanie is not reasonable. Have you ever met

15 her?

16 A. No, but based upon the information and the court

17 proceedings, and the paperwork, a judge has concluded that

18 she's a vulnerable adult. And that's why Charlotte DOE

19 is--so what you're basically telling me is there can never be

20 any crimes against a vulnerable adult because they can't make

21 up their own minds and determine what's right and wrong.

22 Q. Is that what I said?

23 A. That's how I am taking what you said.

24 Q. My question to you is, in this case, Stephanie DOE, we

25 know, is a vulnerable adult. I want to make this clear.

Page # 50


1 It's your opinion that because she is vulnerable, you don't

2 have to establish that she was actually afraid of Mr.

3 Tompkins before you arrest him for stalking her, is that

4 correct?

5 A. Let me understand this. The question you're asking is, I

6 arrested Mr. Tompkins without establishing the fear factor

7 with Stephanie herself?

8 Q. That's one of my questions. Did you think that you

9 needed--did you feel at that time you needed to establish

10 that Stephanie was afraid of him before you could arrest him

11 for stalking?

12 A. No.

13 Q. In your mind was it sufficient that the family was

14 afraid?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. And I guess I should have charged him with three counts.

18 Q. Okay. And let's look back at the statute again. The

19 next part of this is that the stalker intends to frighten,

20 intimidate or harass the person.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. Did you believe you had evidence to establish that Mr.

23 Tompkins intended to frighten, intimidate or harass Stephanie

24 DOE?

25 A. Yes.

Page # 51


1 Q. And what was that evidence?

2 A. It's the attempted phone calls, the attempted letters,

3 the attempted, him sending the three certified letters,

4 showing up at the hospital. In his mind, he probably didn't

5 feel he was frightening, intimidating or harassing them. But

6 in their mind, they did.

7 Q. Okay. So are you saying that it doesn't matter what his

8 intent is?

9 A. Right. Somewhere down here it says that--

10 Q. Let's go on--

11 A. It's not a defense.

12 Q. Well, no. It says under that same section (c), intends

13 to frighten, intimidate or harass a person, or knows and

14 reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated

15 or harassed, even if the person did not intend to place the

16 person in fear. Did you have evidence that you believe

17 established Mr. Tompkins reasonably should have known that

18 Stephanie DOE was either afraid of him, felt intimidated

19 by him or felt she was being harassed by him?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. What was that evidence?

22 A. He was told to stay away by Charlotte, by Stephanie, by

23 the brother, by the father.

24 Q. When did Stephanie tell him to stay away?

25 A. When he showed up at the hospital in January.

Page # 52


1 Q. And you got that information from whom?

2 A. I got that information from the mom.

3 Q. And she got her information from whom?

4 A. Stephanie.

5 Q. That's what she said.

6 A. That's what she said.

7 Q. And what did Charlotte tell you that Stephanie told her

8 she said to Mr. Tompkins?

9 A. She asked him to leave. She told him--

10 Q. So she asked him to leave the hospital room. In your

11 opinion, that's a statement by her that she doesn't want him

12 to ever contact her again?

13 A. Well, she hadn't been in contact with him for six months,

14 or since November, December, Jan--so two months. A

15 reasonable person would realize that, you know, he's been

16 told by the family to stay away, he shows up at the hospital

17 and she tells him to leave.

18 Q. So in your opinion, any reasonable person would

19 understand that means she doesn't want to receive a letter

20 from him, she doesn't want any contact from him at all.

21 A. Yeah.

22 Q. Okay. Do you remember talking to someone at the

23 Department of Health, the investigation services unit,

24 regarding Mr. Tompkins?

25 A. Yeah.

Page # 53


1 Q. Okay. And what was the nature of that call?

2 A. I got a phone call asking me if--it was from a Dwight

3 Corell (phonetic), and he was wondering if I had any

4 information on Randles Tompkins. And I said well, I've got a

5 report here.

6 Q. And do you remember anything else that you might have

7 told him at that time?

8 A. No, I told him--no, I don't recall.

9 Q. Did you tell him you intended to arrest Mr. Tompkins for

10 stalking?

11 A. I told him I had probable cause.

12 Q. Do you remember when it was you talked to Mr. Corell?

13 A. No. I didn't feel it was important. I could go back and

14 look in my log. I usually try to keep a log of every time I

15 talk to somebody on the telephone.

16 Q. It was some time before you arrested Mr. Tompkins,

17 correct?

18 A. I don't know when it was, I'm sorry.

19 Q. Well, fair to say that if you had already arrested Mr.

20 Tompkins, you probably would have told him that.

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. So if you told him you had probable cause to arrest him,

23 it was probably before you actually arrested him.

24 A. Yeah, based on Badicke's reports. I think he talked to

25 Deputy Badicke much more in depth than I did.

Page # 54


1 Q. At the time you arrested Mr. Tompkins, were you aware

2 that he had filed reports with internal affairs?

3 A. No.

4 Q. When did you find that out?

5 A. I think it was after I had arrested him. I got called

6 in.

7 Q. You hadn't discussed that with Deputy Badicke at all?

8 A. No, but based on--I think somewhere I learned later, I

9 don't know when I learned, but he had been--he had been--I

10 learned later somewhere along the line, I don't know if it's

11 in the reports or all this information, but that Randles

12 Tompkins had filed an IA complaint against him.

13 Q. Okay. Do you remember what the nature of that complaint

14 was?

15 A. No. Didn't involve me.

16 Q. Do you remember if he filed one against you?

17 A. I believe he did. After his arrest. And--

18 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 1.

19 This is that 24 Hour Fitness log that we referenced earlier.

20 You said Mr. Tompkins showed you this to try to explain why

21 he couldn't have been where--

22 A. At the hospital.

23 Q. --Ms. C. DOE was claiming he was at a particular time.

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And you said it didn't show that. Can you explain to me

Page # 55


1 why you believe this didn't show what--

2 A. Because she was in the hospital on 11-19. He's got it

3 highlighted 11-20-2005. He showed me 11-5-2005, as another

4 incident. And I believe she wasn't even in the hospital at

5 that point. I don't know what the 11-5 was, but it didn't

6 match with anything that I had in here.

7 Q. Can you tell me the two dates that Mr. Tompkins was

8 supposedly in the hospital to see Ms. S. DOE?                                                        
9 A. One was 11-19, and the other one was January 2006.

10 Q. Is that, you're referring to your report there?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. And could you go back and look at that again, at your

13 report? I'm going to ask you to look at that part where you

14 indicated that Ms. S. DOE was in the hospital on the 19th.

15 A. It says Stephanie is back in the hospital again. The

16 family is taking turns staying with Stephanie during the

17 night. Randles Tompkins shows up at 6:00 a.m. Mark K. DOE

18 told Randles to stop talking to Stephanie. She is unable to

19 make decisions for herself. Randles was persistent, but

20 finally left.

21 Q. Just to clarify something, based on what you have in that

22 report--that information was obtained from who?

23 A. Charlotte.

24 Q. And she says that Stephanie went back to the hospital on

25 the 19th?

Page # 56


1 A. Uh-huh.

2 Q. And then Randles show up at 6:00 a.m.

3 A. Right. So it would be the 20th, but still his time is

4 10:39.

5 Q. Well, I'm just trying to clarify. You're not certain

6 whether she was in the hospital on the 20th or not.

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Could have been.

9 A. Could have been. But still this has 10:39 as check-in.

10 Q. Are you familiar with the name Steve Leffler (phonetic)?

11 A. Yeah, based upon--

12 Q. Badicke's report?

13 A. Uh-huh.

14 Q. What's your understanding of Steve Leffler's connection

15 to this?

16 A. He was good friends with Stephanie DOE and he's a

17 schizophrenic.

18 Q. The information was he had dated Stephanie DOE for

19 some period of time, correct?

20 A. I'd have to review the report. I'm not sure if that was

21 information or not, or if that's information I learned from

22 all this stuff preceding being sued.

23 Q. What about Dave Germain, is that name familiar?

24 A. Dave Germain, no. I'm sure it's in Badicke's report

25 somewhere.

Page # 57


1 Q. Did you make any attempt to contact Mr. Leffler as part

2 of your investigation?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Before arresting Mr. Tompkins, did you review his

5 criminal history?

6 A. No.

7 Q. You didn't think it would be important to review Mr.

8 Tompkins' criminal history?

9 A. Mr. Tompkins showed up when I was not expecting him, and

10 I had enough probable cause when I arrested him. After

11 arrest, the prosecutor's office would ask me to contact

12 further people.

13 Q. In the normal course of doing an investigation of this

14 type and to an allegation of stalking, would you review the

15 suspect's criminal history before making an arrest?

16 A. Usually.

17 Q. And you didn't in this case because why?

18 A. I ran him through CAD/RMS.

19 Q. When you say CAD/RMS, what do you mean?

20 A. It's our personal records.

21 Q. And that was before you arrested him?

22 A. I don't recall. I don't have it in my notes or things

23 like that because basically Badicke already had established

24 probable cause and it just, he didn't do the affidavit. He

25 sent it over to me. I mean, this was not--

Page # 58


1 Q. Did you do anything to verify any other statements that

2 Charlotte DOE had made to you regarding either her

3 contacts with Mr. Tompkins or Mr. Tompkins' contact with

4 Stephanie?

5 A. Did I verify who?

6 Q. Did you make any attempt to verify her statements? Did

7 you contact the hospital, did you contact other witnesses?

8 A. No.

9 Q. So you relied essentially exclusively on what Charlotte

10 DOE told you?

11 A. And Badicke's report.

12 Q. And Badicke's report. Do you recall whether Mr. Tompkins

13 showed you any phone records when you interviewed him?

14 A. No.

15 Q. At the time you arrested Mr. Tompkins, were you aware of

16 the domestic violence no contact order that had been

17 requested?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And were you aware that he had appealed that order?

20 A. No, I don't think so. I don't remember. I know that

21 there's still a protection order in place. And--but I don't

22 recall if he appealed that or not.

23 Q. Do you recall when the protection order was entered?

24 A. No. I can look back at the order because I think there's

25 a copy in here.

Page # 59


1 Q. Let me ask you a little more straightforward. Did you

2 make any attempt to determine whether or not Mr. Tompkins had

3 violated the order at all?

4 A. He hadn't violated the order after the order was issued.

5 All of these incidents have occurred before the order was put

6 in place. It's when the order went into place that he

7 started filing IA complaints. It looks like the order,

8 temporary order was issued on 2-15-06. There were no

9 incidents thereafter except for the most recent report that

10 came, that circumstance.

11 Q. So just to be clear, you didn't have any other basis for

12 arresting him at that time. Only for stalking. Correct?

13 A. Well, no. I probably would have arrested him for more

14 counts--well, stalking and then harassment of the family. I

15 mean--but I just arrested him on the stalking.

16 Q. When you say you could have arrested him for harassing

17 the family--

18 A. Yeah, because they were getting calls and show-ups and

19 there was intimidation.

20 Q. Did you have evidence that Mr. Tompkins had been

21 contacting Charlotte DOE?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Then how could you have arrested him for stalking her?

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Object to the form of the question. I

25 don't think that she would arrest him--

Page # 60


1 MR. WALL: That's what she just said.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: She said more counts.

3 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Well, one for Charlotte, one for the

4 brother, right?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. You said the family. Ms. C. DOE and who else?

7 A. I arrested him for stalking of Stephanie DOE. He was

8 making phone calls and trying to contact her. She lives with

9 her parents. So I could have possibly charged him with more

10 crimes, but I didn't do an investigation. I based my

11 investigation on Badicke's report, the information I had from

12 Charlotte. So if I had done a thorough information

13 investigation, I probably would have charged him with much

14 more. I didn't.

15 Q. My question to you was, did you have any other basis for

16 arresting Mr. Tompkins other than the charge that you filed

17 against him.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Okay.

20 (Ex. No. 2, citation, marked.)

21 MR. WALL: I'll get you a copy of this, Jim. It's

22 just the ticket.

23 MR. KAUFMAN: Ticket she wrote?

24 MR. WALL: Yeah, I'll get you a copy. We all have

25 one already, but just so you know what we're looking at.

Page # 61



1 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Deputy, I'm showing you what's been marked

2 as Exhibit No. 2. And you recognize what that is?

3 A. Uh-huh, it's a copy of my citation.

4 Q. And this is the citation you wrote on the 14th of April,

5 2006, correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Okay. When did you write it?

8 A. I wrote it April 17, 2006.

9 Q. I'm sorry, I misspoke. And then what did you do with

10 this once you had written and signed this ticket? Actually,

11 let me ask you, is this the copy you signed?

12 A. By me, yes.

13 Q. And so that is your signature at the bottom?

14 A. Uh-huh. He was booked into jail, and it should have been

15 put booked right there, but--

16 Q. What did you do with the ticket after you completed it?

17 A. It went into records.

18 Q. And did you do anything to it after that? Did you make

19 any notations, additions, subtractions from it?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Okay. Is this copy the same as the one you have in your

22 file?

23 A. You mean--of my copy?

24 Q. Uh-huh.

25 A. Looks the same to me.

Page # 62


1 Q. Okay.

2 (Ex. No. 3, citation, marked.)

3 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Okay, Deputy, I'm showing you what's been

4 marked as Exhibit 3. Have you seen that before?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Does this appear to be a copy of the same

7 citation, doesn't it?

8 A. It does.

9 Q. But there's some additional writing on it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. There's also a filed stamp on it.

12 A. Uh-huh.

13 Q. And there appears to be someone else's signature on the

14 body of the ticket, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Do you recognize that signature?

17 A. No, I do not.

18 Q. There's some additional handwriting that says defendant,

19 using the delta sign, did intentionally and repeatedly harass

20 or followed or attempted to contact victim and victim was

21 harassed or intimidated. I take it you didn't write that?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you recognize that handwriting?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Do you have any idea who wrote that in there?

Page # 63


1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay, who wrote that in there?

3 A. It would be the prosecutor who did the review before the

4 first court appearance.

5 Q. And you don't know who the prosecutor was?

6 A. Well, no, I don't.

7 Q. Did you ever go to court on this matter?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Would you normally write in that language on the ticket

10 yourself?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Was that your training, is you're not to do that, you're

13 to leave that blank?

14 A. The prosecutors do that.

15 Q. Okay. If there are alternate ways of committing an

16 offense, does that change whether or not you're supposed to

17 write something in there, or is that still up to the

18 prosecutor to put that language in there?

19 A. When the prosecutors get tickets, if they don't have a

20 probable cause affidavit, then they make notes on that, on

21 the ticket. And if it's--if there's a probable cause

22 affidavit, then they go off the probable cause affidavit.

23 Q. Did you file a probable cause affidavit for this

24 citation?

25 A. No, I wrote up the citation and I booked him into jail,

Page # 64


1 so it's my understanding this was what the prosecutors do.

2 Q. Did Charlotte DOE ask you to arrest Mr. Tompkins?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Just a second, Jim. Did you ever complete a probable

5 cause affidavit for this charge?

6 A. Not that I recall, no.

7 Q. And so if prosecutor said they had one, do you have any

8 idea where they would have gotten it?

9 A. Huh-uh. I don't have one in my report. Maybe I was

10 asked later on to do one based on the report, because

11 sometimes that happens.

12 Q. That wouldn't be in your file, if someone did a probable

13 cause affidavit?

14 A. Not unless it was me.

15 Q. How would anybody else do a probable cause affidavit if

16 you were the one who made the arrest?

17 A. Well, because sometimes it happens that somebody, you can

18 read the report, and determine that there's probable cause,

19 and if it's, sometimes it's a weekend booking or things like

20 that, and the officer's off duty, the corporal or sergeant or

21 another deputy or somebody within the unit will do a probable

22 cause affidavit. In our unit, basically if it's a felony

23 case and it's--there's been an arrest, it comes to our unit

24 and it's not always the same arresting officer. They'll do

25 what's called a probable cause affidavit or an affidavit of

Page # 65


1 facts. And then it gets filed within 72 hours and--

2 Q. On a felony. Is that the same procedure for a

3 misdemeanor?

4 A. It is on a weekend.

5 Q. Was this on a weekend, do you recall?

6 A. No.

7 Q. So if someone did a probable cause affidavit of that

8 nature, would that go only to a prosecutor, it wouldn't go

9 into your file?

10 A. Unless I did it.

11 Q. Unless you did it, okay. Then it would just go to the

12 prosecutor.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Did you ever speak to anyone at Adult Protective

15 Services?

16 A. Did I speak to anybody at Adult Protective Services.

17 Q. Prior to arresting Mr. Tompkins?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Okay. I don't know if we need to do this as an exhibit.

20 MR. KAUFMAN: Off the record for a second.

21 (Discussion off the record.)

22 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Deputy, I've shown you a copy of a portion

23 of your answers to plaintiff's interrogatories in this case.

24 And this would be your answer to interrogatory number five.

25 All I'm going to ask you to do is take a minute to review

Page # 66


1 your answer there, and tell me if there's anything you would

2 like to add or subtract to that answer at this point based

3 upon what's happened here today.

4 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, probably we should have the

5 date when those were propounded. I think it was clear, but

6 in case we propounded another number five--

7 MR. WALL: This would be plaintiff's first set of

8 interrogatories. The answers were provided on May 2, 2008,

9 under your certification.

10 MR. KAUFMAN: Right, my signature is dated May 2nd,

11 you're right. It's number five of that.

12 MR. WALL: Correct.

13 A. So what is it you want me to--

14 Q. (BY MR. WALL) My question is, is there anything you

15 would want to add or subtract to that statement at this point

16 in time?

17 A. Well, there's a typo.

18 Q. What is the typo, just so we can make that clear?

19 A. It says the relationship took a romantic turn, and then

20 there's no I for the in the fall of 2005.

21 MR. KAUFMAN: Counsel, I understand your question.

22 Before she answers it, with regard to the addition part, I

23 think she's probably already asked and answered that. The

24 subtraction part, I think, is a new deal. But she's made a

25 lot of comments about Badicke's report that isn't in there.

Page # 67


1 So--

2 Q. (BY MR. WALL) Let me rephrase this. Other than what

3 you've stated in your deposition today, is there anything you

4 would add to that statement?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. At this point, is there anything that you would

7 want to take out of that statement as being either incorrect

8 or not what you intended to say?

9 A. No.

10 MR. WALL: Okay. We're done. Unless you have

11 questions.

12 MR. KAUFMAN: No, I have no questions.

13 (Deposition off the record at 4:05 p.m.)

Page # 68


1 CORRECTION SHEET

2 PAGE LINE CORRECTION

17 I have read the foregoing 68 pages of my

testimony and believe the same to be true and correct, except

18 for the corrections noted above.

Dated this of , 2008.

20 __________________________________

CINDY NORTH-JONES

22 Subscribed and sworn to before me this of , 2008. My commission expires .

Notary Public

Page # 69


1 STATE OF WASHINGTON )

) ss. Reporter's Certificate

2 County of Spokane )

3 I, Stephanie Sage, a Certified Court Reporter

4 and Notary Public in and for the state of Washington;

5 DO HEREBY CERTIFY:

6 That the foregoing is a true and correct

7 transcription of my shorthand notes as taken upon the

8 deposition of CINDY NORTH-JONES on the date and at the time

9 and place as shown on page one hereto;

10 That the witness was sworn upon her oath to tell

11 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and did

12 thereafter make answers as appear herein;

13 That I am not related to any of the parties to

14 this litigation and have no interest in the outcome of said

15 litigation;

16 Witness my hand and seal this 13th day of July,

17 2008.

20 CCR No. 2561

21 Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the state of

22 Washington, residing in Spokane

====================================================== 

HEARING BEFORE JUDGE BRADLEY C. CHINN  (CBC) SPOKANE, WA. 99260 USA !

ALSO THIS IS THE SAME JUDGE (CBC) FROM MY CRIMINAL TRIAL CR0052967 DV STALKING RCW 9A.46.110 + CASE IS DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE !

 ITS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS JUDGE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BENCH !

C. Bradley Chinn - Lawyer Profile
C. Bradley Chinn Dist. Ct. Comr.; Spokane Co. Dist. Ct.
Pub. Safety Bldg., 1100 W. Mallon Ave.
Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.)
Experience & Credentials 
Practice Areas Divorce Law; Appellate Law 
University Drake University, B.A. 
Law School Gonzaga University, J.D. 
Admitted 1979

ISLN 908406072
Member Name: C. Bradley Chinn WSBA Bar #: 9465
Firm or Employer:   Admit Date: 10/30/1979
Address: 1319 W Dean Ave
Spokane, WA  99201-2014
United States Status: Active
Phone: (509) 327-7000

MORNING SESSION

 August 23, 2007, 9:02 a.m.

(The following proceedings

occurred in open court:)

 (The preceding was not requested

to be transcribed.)

                         THE COURT:  Stephanie DOE, as petitioner.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  And that is 787861DV, and we have no service on Mr. Tompkins?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I was served, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  All right.  So, I was going to ask--  I don’t know if you’ve received this?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I just received a copy of it.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I do have a copy of a proof of service.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  All I need to make sure is that you remember when you were served?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, they came a couple days ago, so--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  A couple days--  no, it was--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  whenever it was.  Yeah, maybe it might have been a week.  Somebody knocked at my door, day--  on the 15th of August, August 15th, they knocked on my door.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, that--  do you agree with that?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yes.

                         THE COURT:  So, any questions about the service then?  So you’ve received a copy of the petition and the statement here?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes.

                         THE COURT:  And you’re ready to proceed this morning?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

  (The following proceedings

were not requested to be

transcribed.)

                         THE COURT:  And then we are ready on the DOE versus Tompkins.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Here, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  And this is number 787861DV, with a temporary order signed by Pro Tem Judge Aronow, on August 14, ’07, and there is a two-page statement by Ms. DOE.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  There’s No document signed by Ms. DOE, just the attorney, nor Stephanie DOE.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Your Honor, this is--  this is essentially a continuation from the original protection order that was entered on February 28th of 2006, and I have the file here if that would--  if that would help.

                         THE COURT:  Well, you lost me there.  Is this a request for re-issuance, or extension, or--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  This will be a request for a permanent protection order, yes.

                         THE COURT:  Well, this is a temporary order signed on August 14th, so that tells me there was nothing else pending at the time except this--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  The original--  the

original--  the original order had expired.  And then Mr. Tompkins continues to contact individuals and continues to stalk Ms. DOE.  And so the petitioner has filed a new order--  or a new request for an order granting a DV protection order.  However, we will be asking for a permanent order based upon the previous--  based upon the previous DV protection order.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  There’s been five previous orders.  I went to trial on four different cases.  I won them all.  The mother has perjured the entire testimony.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  We’ll--  we’ll--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  --  get to that here in a second, and you can spare me the editorializing.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  I’m not interested in your opinion here--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.

                         THE COURT:  --  so that’s not really admissible.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Oh.

                         UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That was the

previous--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  That--  that was the previous DV hearing.

                         THE COURT:  And so that’s no longer in effect is that--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No, it is no longer in effect.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  And--

                         THE COURT:  So, let me ask, counselor, what--  do we have something from Ms. DOE as far as allegations?  And, number two, how do they meet the requirement under 26.50.020?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  What we’ve got here is, and actually there--  there does not need to be new allegations presented.  The case of Spence v Komenski (phonetic) indicates that no new allegations need be presented, only that there is a continuing fear of--  of the respondent.

                         THE COURT:  Oh, if you’re talking about the--  oh, I think that’s 103 Appellate.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  It is 1031 App.325.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  The requirement there is that you don’t have to show a recent domestic violence act, but you have to show a fear that a subsequent or that a new domestic violence act will occur.  And what I’m getting in just looking at your statement here is it says the respondent continues to contact local agencies, including, it looks like CPS, and I’m not sure somebody else--  and how that would apply.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, Your Honor, what it gets down to is stalking, and--  and--

                         THE COURT:  Well, I don’t--  that’s what I’m trying to get at.  I see an allegation here he’s stalking me or stalking her and I don’t see any evidence of that.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, there will be evidence.  We will be presenting evidence, and I intend to ask--  to question Mr. Tompkins specifically on that.

                         THE COURT:  Well, do you understand that he doesn’t have to testify?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  And I understand that.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  So, you have evidence other than what’s in the file?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I do, I do.  I presented up evidence--

                         THE COURT:  Is that what this is?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  correct.  And these are--

                         THE COURT:  Have you seen that?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’ve seen it, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  and those are documents provided to Stephanie DOE medical doctor.  And specifically in the letter, it indicates that Mr. Tompkins is reading Stephanie’s confidential information, as well as continuing to contact Adult Protective Services.  And I don’t believe that Mr. Tompkins would deny that he continues to contact these local agencies, despite--  despite the previous domestic violence order that has expressly indicated that--  that he’s to have no further contact with Ms. DOE.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  After a year in court, if you look at the dockets on the back of those papers, I submitted you, I have now been able to obtain all public records on my civil, I’m filing a lawsuit against Stephanie DOE mother for perjury, and the fact that she falsified all the documents.  There is a case in Federal Court now for false arrest on documents by the mother, police department.

                         I’m requesting public records that are required after being blocked for over a year and a half.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, these--  this--  this is a guardianship file.  This has nothing to do--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  That’s public records.

                         THE COURT:  Well, I’m still not satisfied here on your offer the proof.  Do you have a letter from Dr. Ashby, and--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I haven’t contacted--

                         THE COURT:  --  I have no idea what that is, and there’s a faxed affidavit apparently.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Well, Your Honor, there is medical tags contained within here that we have no idea how Mr. Tompkins obtained copies of these medical tags.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  They’re all in the public file, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  So, you’re saying that all of this is actually from him?  Is that what--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Correct, these are all documents that were provided by Mr. Tompkins to Dr. Ashby.

                         THE COURT:  And that supports your case in what manner?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  That simply he is stalking Ms. DOE, that he is fixated upon her, and that he--  he will not let this fixation settle.

                         THE COURT:  So, is there something in this that supports that contention?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Yeah, the entire dock--  the entire file.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’m trying to obtain all files from my previous four trials that I’ve had against the mother in court that has now entitled me under public records.  I’ve also got a judge’s order saying that they can release all the reports to me.  Judge Cooney, in courtroom five, on April--  I think March 14, 2007, since the trial has been dismissed, as of January 18th, I’m now obtaining all records from all the different trials and all public access to all documents for my civil lawsuit against the mother for perjuring all the documents in the court, which I have a right to do.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  There’s--  there is no cause of action for perjury.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I haven’t contacted Stephanie DOE.  I haven’t tried to contact--

                         THE COURT:  Now, I--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  Stephanie DOE.

                         THE COURT:  --  take it your--  the statements in here by--  and I’ll take evidence if that’s required, the statements in here by Mr. Tompkins regarding some type of relationship between your client and him is--  is not correct?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No, Your Honor.  We’ve got--  we’ve got findings of fact that Mr. Tompkins had unprotected sex with Ms. DOE.  And Ms. DOE is a vulnerable adult.  She has a guardianship put in place that Charlotte DOE, as her mother, is her guardian.  And that there are--  there are findings of fact within that original order--

                         THE COURT:  So, how is this a domestic violence case if there is not--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Because there was a prior relationship.  There was a prior--

                         THE COURT:  That’s not currently in effect?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  there was a prior--  correct.  There was a prior dating relationship and that’s how the DV--  and that’s how it became a DV.

                         THE COURT:  So, is she independent living

or--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  She--

                         THE COURT:  --  or assisted living, or--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  --  no, she lives with--  she lives with Ms. DOE and her father.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  And I have Ms. DOE here.  Ms. DOE is here available to testify, as well as Ms. DOE, as well.

                         THE COURT:  Anything else from the petitioner’s case do you want to present?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Other than just presenting--  presenting testimony from Ms. DOE and Ms. DOE.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  If you want to present evidence, you can certainly do so.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Okay.  Sure.

                         THE COURT:  And we can just have your witness take a seat right there.  So, I’m not sure who you wanted to call first.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I’m going to call Stephanie first.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  And, Ma’am, would you please raise your right-hand.

STEPHANIE DOE,

Called as a witness on her own behalf,

having been first duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Now, your counselor’s going to ask you some questions so you just want to listen to him here in a second, and then we’ll proceed from there.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. NACCARATO:

     Q.    Okay.  Stephanie, do you know who Randles Tompkins is?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    And are you afraid of Mr. Tompkins?

     A.    I’m scared to my death of--  scared to death of him.

     Q.    And--  and why are you scared of him?

     A.    Because he forced a kiss on me in the hospital when I was deathly ill.

     Q.    And do you--  are you scared that he’s going to try and hurt you again?

     A.    Yes, I am.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  That’s all I’ve got for Ms. DOE.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Do you have any other witnesses?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I do. 

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I’ve got--  I’ve got Stephanie’s mother, Charlotte DOE.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  Ma’am, you may be excused.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Do I get to cross-examine?

                         THE COURT:  No, there’s a--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  No.

                         THE COURT:  --  Protection Order--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Oh.

                         THE COURT:  --  Against You Doing That Very Thing.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

                         THE COURT:  And, Ma’am, would you please raise your right-hand.

CHARLOTTE DOE,

Called as a witness on behalf of the

 petitioner, having been first duly

sworn, was examined and testified

as follows:

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Again, counsel’s going to ask you some questions, so just please listen to those.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Okay.

 DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. NACCARATO:

     Q.    Ms. DOE, there was a previous domestic violence protection order in place, correct?

     A.    Yes.

     Q.    And those allegations were that Randles had taken Stephanie to Coeur d’Alene and had unprotected sex with her, and that you are in fear that Randles would continue to try these activities, correct?

     A.    Yes, and he showed her a gun and said he would use it to protect them against anyone who tried to keep them apart.

     Q.    Now, do you still have the same fears for Stephanie’s safety that you had at that time?

     A.    Yes, he hasn’t quit at all.

     Q.    And--  and when you say that he hasn’t quit at all, what do you mean?

     A.    He--  he continues to dig through any records he can find and go to every service he can find and have me investigated repeatedly, non-provoked.

     Q.    And--  and based upon his actions, what you’ve seen so far, do you have a fear for Stephanie’s safety?

     A.    Yes, she won’t stay home alone at all, and nor will we leave her, because we’re afraid he’ll show up at any moment.

     Q.    Okay.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  That’s all I have, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Mr. Tompkins, do you have any questions of this witness?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I--  I see--

                         THE COURT:  Do you have any questions of the witness?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  okay.  Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. TOMPKINS:

     Q.    Have I contacted Stephanie since February 6th of 2006?

     A.    You have not quit hassling us ever.

     Q.    I have not contacted Stephanie, made any phone calls, or done any--

     A.    You cause us to be contacted--

                         THE COURT:  Well, okay.  This isn’t working--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay, okay.

                         THE COURT:  --  both people talking at the same time.  Why don’t you ask a question and let her answer that.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay.

     Q.    Have I violated the no contact order since you issued it on February 13, 2006?

     A.    I don’t know for certain, but you’ve done everything you can to hassle us.

                         THE COURT:  Any other questions?

     Q.    Did--  after Stephanie told you that I supposedly had a gun and threatened her, I have actual recordings of her calling me, asking me to marry her and stuff?

     A.    She was on 15 drugs at the time in the hospital deathly ill and you kept showing up.

     Q.    Now, Stephanie DOE is--  you also--  Steve Leffler (phonetic) was engaged to be married to Stephanie DOE?

     A.    A long time ago.

     Q.    Okay.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  That’s it--

                         THE COURT:  Any other questions?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  I don’t know if there’s follow up by--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No.

                         THE COURT:  Thank you.  Ma’am, you may step down.  Any other evidence from the petitioner?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  No, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Sir, did you wish to testify this morning?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, I did.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  You understand that I don’t know if there’s any criminal matter pending or under investigation by the prosecutor’s office for the domestic violence unit in Spokane, either county or city.  And it doesn’t matter to me the petitioner still has to make her case for re-issuance or in effect to issue a protection order under the Washington law here.

                         All of this means that you are not required to testify.  Any statements that you make are going to be under oath, they are recorded and the prosecutor can use those as evidence to either bolster or create a case against you regarding a criminal matter.  So, you understand that any statement you make, they--  they are evidence.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, sir.

                         THE COURT:  And I don’t care whether you testify or not, the petitioner still has to make his or her burden of proof.  So, you understand your right to remain silent?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  Do you still want to testify this morning?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Yes, I do.

                         THE COURT:  And would you raise your right-hand.

RANDLES TOMPKINS,

Called as a witness on his own behalf,

having been first duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:

                         THE COURT:  Go ahead.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Okay. I--  I filed this docket here with you.  I was asking that this case be dismissed for the fact that the documents weren’t even filed properly on this hearing, and that the mother did not sign nothing, that I was not served with anything from the mother, and there’s no actual allegation of stalking based on the law that should be stalking.  If you’d like to re-file and do the paperwork properly, I think this should be dismissed because there was no basis to issue the original DV protection order.

                         THE COURT:  You’re talking about the temporary one?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  The temporary one should not have been issued based on what he submitted.  It shows no domestic violence or the fact that I contacted Stephanie.  And the paperwork was not filed properly, it wasn’t signed by anybody served to me, on the service.  The mother didn’t sign it, Stephanie didn’t sign it.

                         In the previous case on pages--  he’s also signed other statements back the first domestic violence on page--  let me find this here--  on page--  on 41, he signed it.  That was the original domestic violence issued, and on page 46, he signed it.  Charlotte DOE did not sign either statement, or Stephanie DOE.

                         I contacted the Bar Association on the fact of his improper paperwork, the fact that he’s not following procedures, I want this case dismissed today due to improperly filed paperwork and that he perjured himself.

                         THE COURT:  Any other testimony you want to present?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’m a licensed nurse under the State of Washington, and I’m required by law that it was Stephanie DOE told me that she was being abused, that I filed reports with APS, on November 4, 2005.

                         The trial dragged on on the last page of the document, I have--  there’s pages, and pages, and pages of court hearings.  It was appealed to Superior Court on January 18, 2007.  The cases were all dismissed in the interest of justice and the fact that the mother had perjured everything according to the--  falsified all the documents.

                         So, as of that date, all the restraining orders were removed, and that’s why I led the appeal which was supposed to have been appealed to the Appellate Court, Division III, was eventually dropped.  So this has been an ongoing continuing case of me contacting agencies to get documents on my behalf for the trials that have been going on since up to 2007.

                         I now have a trial in Federal Court where we’re trying to obtain documents of everything in public records, everything that I have presented is in public files in the courthouse, which is--  allows for me to have.  And I did not obtain anything illegally or I’m only asking for what is rightfully due after the charges have been dismissed.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Anything else you want to tell me this morning?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  No, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, I note that there--   this is a little bit different structurally or tactically, however, you want to put that.

                         A lot of people come in and they think, well, I have power of attorney, or I’m the attorney of record, so therefore, I can present all the evidence or the petition for the person who’s making the allegation and that’s not necessarily true.  But, I have heard evidence here this morning, and it’s real clear to me, a couple things that there is a legal guardian appointed for Stephanie, and that’s the starting point here.  And she’s also testified this morning.

                         There’s also, I’m going to call it a--  not a complete irregularity, but the captions don’t necessarily match on the offers of proof and declarations and on the temporary order, which Pro Tem Judge Aronow signed on August 14th.  But it’s real clear to me that, number one, Stephanie, has been assigned and appointed a guardian by Superior Court.  I take it that’s in this county?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  Correct.

                         THE COURT:  A Superior Court judge appointed Ms. DOE and that counsel is of record today representing the interests of the, I’m going to call it both parties, the guardian and the vulnerable adult, and I don’t see a conflict of interest there whatsoever, because there’s no issue here that really addresses that.

                         My concern is this, your file of documents, let’s call it, has a letter from Department of Social and Health Services from April 24, ’07.  And the starting point by the APS supervisor is I received your 19-page letter.  I read in its entirety three times and am still not exactly sure what you are alleging.

                         And in the middle of that paragraph, it says, I assure you if you have a reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult is being harmed, we will investigate and make every attempt within the law to help Ms. DOE, which tells me you were making an allegation at some point earlier this year that Ms. DOE was being abused by somebody.  And I don’t even know if that was Ms. DOE, it really doesn’t matter, but it’s real clear to me that this is exactly what the legislature in the State of Washington drafted and formed these statutes under 26.50.

                         This is not a stalking case.  Stalking is a very broad definition and I’m not even going to get into that because that’s not what applies here.  What applies is that under the case cited by counsel, 103 Wn. App., that the petitioner can say there has not been any recent event, meaning I’m not a victim of current or recent domestic violence, but two things. 

                         Number one, there was a previous, and we’ve heard that domestic violence matter, and number two, there is a concern and/or fear that that’s going to happen again.  And for some reason, and I think the term fixated here is very appropriate.  Ms. DOE has told you at some point, as has Ms. DOE and has her counsel, and apparently you’re not getting the message here, there’s nothing going on here.  Whatever there was it’s over, it’s terminated.  She has the right to do that and to say leave me alone, don’t call me, don’t investigate me, don’t ask people things about me, that’s it.  So you have to respect that.

                         If you’re saying that you have--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I’m not allowed--

                         THE COURT:  --  that you care for her, this is not the way you do it.  And so--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  --  I’m not asking for that.  I’m asking for copies of all public records.

                         THE COURT:  My conclusion here today is that the only thing that the court’s ruling on is whether the petitioner has met the burden to establish that she is in fear that a subsequent domestic violence act will occur.  And given your testimony here today, and your exhibits on their face, most of these, tell me that you--  you’re not leaving her alone.  You are, for some reason, and I don’t know what the cover is here, and I don’t know what’s the smoke screen, but you’re using other excuses here to stay after her.  And she’s made it real clear that she doesn’t want to have anything to do with you.

                         So, now, not only do you have to abide by her wishes, but now it’s a court order, because I’m going to grant the order here and I’m going to make that good for 24 months, which means based on the evidence that I’ve heard here, I believe that she’s going to need that for at least the maximum jurisdiction in District Court.

                         Any contact with her, if you pass any message along, call CPS, and say ask Stephanie something, or if you are outside of her house, or go within two blocks of her residence, or make any third party contact with her, you’re going to be in violation of the order.  And I think you already are aware of this that that carries up to a maximum one year jail term and/or $5,000 fine.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  So I can no longer proceed with my lawsuit against her?

                         THE COURT:  As long as there no contact with her.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  But, if you are--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  You’re turning--

                         THE COURT:  --  doing of this to get through to her or to have somebody call her indirectly, you may be in violation of it.  I can’t give you any legal advice on this--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  --  but what we mean by indirectly is if you don’t have a legal--  if you’re suing somebody in court that’s okay to be in the same courtroom.  But, if you’re pursuing somebody behind the stage, so to speak, behind closed doors and it appears to that person that you are attempting to make some third party contact to get your wishes or your inquiry known to her through CPS, that might be a violation, so you may need some legal advice on this.

                         I’m telling you this because apparently you and I are on a different frequency here when it comes to what we’re doing this morning, but I want to make sure that you understand--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Could you write down the number of that law that he cited that--  where you can go on this forever, and ever, and ever, even though I haven’t stalked her, it’s still considered stalking.  I don’t have a copy of that.

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I’ll give you a copy of that cite.

                         THE COURT:  We’ll give you actually a citation--

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I’ll give you the citation.  And, Your Honor, I would also ask that that--  that the protection order include Charlotte DOE, as well as Tom DOE, Stephanie’s--  Stephanie’s parents who she resides with.

                         THE COURT:  We have--  if I can read this 36536 WEST ALL LIES Avenue, Oldman Lake.  Is that the correct address?

                         MR. NACCARATO:  I believe so.  Let me just double check on that, Your Honor.

                         Yes, Your Honor, it is correct.

                         THE COURT:  So, don’t go within two blocks of that address in Oldman Lake, don’t go within two blocks of any place where Ms. DOE might be employed, or if she’s in school, at any time.

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  I have no knowledge of any other places she’s at.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, that’s--  that’s fine.  Just make sure that you’re in compliance with this.  We’re going to give you a copy of the order and any violation is a criminal offense.  That means that you can be cited and charged, even though the order is a civil order--

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  Right.

                         THE COURT:  --  and each violation becomes a separate and distinct matter, so you also need to consider that.  And I think he’s given you a citation.

                         I think for purposes of today’s hearing, the court’s going to leave Stephanie as the petitioner here, the two-block restriction protects that residence no matter whether she’s there or not.  There’s also a prohibition against ownership, use of firearms during the pendency of the order and any violation of that becomes a state and/or federal felony.  So, any questions about the requirements here?

                         MR. TOMPKINS:  No, Your Honor.

                         THE COURT:  Okay.

 (End of hearing.)

??

============================================================== 

Judge Profile: Honorable Judge Michael P. Price 
Michael P. PriceSupr. Ct. J.; Spokane County
1116 W. Broadway Ave.
Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.)
Experience & Credentials 
Practice Areas Family Law 
University Gonzaga University, B.A. 
Law School Gonzaga University, J.D. 
Admitted 1990 
ISLN 904311721 

Member Name: Michael Patrick Price WSBA Bar #: 20239
Firm or Employer: Spokane Cty Superior Court Admit Date: 11/20/1990
Address: 1116 W Broadway Ave Dept 5
Spokane, WA  99260-0350
United States Status: Judicial
Phone: (509) 477-4766
Fax: (509) 477-5714

Superior Court, Spokane, WA - Department 5 Honorable Michael P. Price
Superior Court Judge

Courtroom 305
Current Assignment: Trial Judge
Elected: 2004
Judicial Assistant: Shannon Collins, 509-477-4766
Court Reporter: Crystal Hicks, 509-477-4412

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

            2                   IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE
                ________________________________________________________________
            3

            4   CHARLOTTE DOE on behalf of:    )
                STEPHANIE E. DOE,                 )  COA No. 26858-6-III
            5                                        )
                          Petitioner/Appellee,       )  Sup. Court Cause
            6                                        )  No. 07-2-04098-1
                v.                                   )
            7                                        )  District Court
                RANDLES TOMPKINS,                    )  Cause No. 787861-DV
            8                                        )
                          Respondent/Appellant.      )
            9
                ________________________________________________________________
           10
                                   HONORABLE MICHAEL P. PRICE
           11                    VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
                              (JANUARY 18, 2008 - JUDGE'S RULING)
           12
                ________________________________________________________________
           13
                APPEARANCES:
           14

           15   FOR THE PETITIONER:        AARON M. NACCARATO
                                           Layman, Layman & Robinson, PLLP
           16                              Attorneys at Law
                                           601 South Division Street
           17                              Spokane, Washington 99202-1335

           18

           19   FOR THE RESPONDANT:        RICHARD D. WALL
                                           Attorney at Law
           20                              423 West 1st Avenue, Suite 250
                                           Spokane, Washington 99201-3700
           21

           22

           23

           24                    Crystal L. Hicks, CCR No. 2955
                                     Official Court Reporter
           25                  1116 W. Broadway, Department No. 5
                                    Spokane, Washington 99260

                                                                               1

            1                    VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

            2                  JANUARY 18, 2008 - JUDGE'S RULING

            3

            4             THE COURT:  Counsel, thank you very much.  We're back

            5   on the record in the matter of Charlotte DOE on behalf of

            6   Stephanie DOE, plaintiff, slash, appellee, Randall Tompkins,

            7   defendant, slash, appellant, and there are two cause numbers.

            8   The Superior Court Cause No. 2007-02-04098-1 on appeal from

            9   District Court Cause No. 787861-DV.  And Mr. Wall here on behalf

           10   of Mr. Tompkins who is here.  Mr. Naccarato here on behalf of

           11   Ms. DOE on behalf of Ms. DOE.

           12             So just a preliminary comment, Counsel, Mr. Tompkins,

           13   Ms. DOE, I did have a chance to read through a substantial

           14   volume of material.  It took me the better part of about three

           15   and a half, four hours to get through everything.  So I think

           16   that's probably a minute amount of time compared to what counsel

           17   has spent on this particular matter.  But I feel that I'm fully

           18   advised.  I'm satisfied I probably have, with due respect of

           19   course to the Court below, I probably have perhaps an even

           20   better perspective as to what may or may not have been going on

           21   than the Commissioner did, given the volume of material that I

           22   felt I needed to read in order to get a handle on this.

           23             And this is Mr. Tompkins' appeal of an order out of

           24   District Court, signed by Commissioner Chinn, who is one of our

           25   commissioners in the District Court.
                                                                               2

            1             Essentially, Counsel, I'll do my best to cut to the

            2   chase here, rather than expressing to you, with all due

            3   respect -- and my comment isn't necessarily directed at

            4   counsel -- but to express to you some of the frustration that I

            5   felt.  And the more time I spent on this file, frankly, the more

            6   frustrated I got, and a lot of that had to do with the

            7   voluminous materials Mr. Tompkins filed in the court file that,

            8   as a judicial officer, I am mandated to look at so that I

            9   understand what he's saying.  But a good portion of which the

           10   Court couldn't even remotely understand what it was that

           11   Mr. Tompkins was trying to say.  That having been said, I spent

           12   the time to look at it.

           13             Let's start with 26.50.030, an issue that's been

           14   raised in terms of Mr. Tompkins' appeal.  Counsel, I have a

           15   significant amount of experience with this particular statute.

           16   In fact, the last couple years, this Court spent a significant

           17   amount of its time concentrating on, in one way or another, this

           18   particular area.  I'm satisfied the statute doesn't require the

           19   petitioner to sign the petition here, which is something that's

           20   alleged.  Mr. Naccarato signed it.  Well, it's always better to

           21   have the party, I suppose, sign it, but I don't know that that's

           22   necessarily a technical error that would cause an irrevocable

           23   flaw in terms of the direction that we went.  A technical

           24   question, but interestingly, it would probably only apply, even

           25   if there was any merit to it, to the question of the temporary


                                                                               3
            1   order that was issued.

            2             That really is an issue that became moot because the

            3   Court went beyond the issue.  The Court below went beyond the

            4   issue of the temporary order stage and held a full hearing and

            5   continued the protection order beyond the temporary order stage.

            6   So arguably, that argument, even though I don't think there's

            7   particular merit to it, would need to have been addressed prior

            8   to the entry of the final order, and it doesn't look like it

            9   happened.  But either way, I'm satisfied the statute doesn't

           10   preclude Mr. Naccarato from signing on behalf of his client.

           11             Now, looking at the District Court and what took place

           12   during those proceedings, it's clear from the record and from

           13   the transcript that Counsel provided to me the District Court

           14   took testimony here, and I'm satisfied the Trial Court, i.e. the

           15   District Court, heard this matter in some great detail.

           16             And if I look at the rule, RALJ 9.2, it does tell the

           17   Court on appeal that the Superior Court shall -- doesn't say

           18   may, doesn't might, doesn't say I can do what I want.  The order

           19   says the Superior court shall accept those factual

           20   determinations supported by substantial evidence in the record,

           21   number one, which were expressly made by the Court of limited

           22   jurisdiction, or, referencing subsection two, that may be

           23   reasonably inferred from the judgment of the Court of limited

           24   jurisdiction.

           25             Again, I've had the chance to go through the record of


                                                                               4

            1   the hearing before Commissioner Chinn, and I'm absolutely

            2   satisfied and it's clear to this Court that the Commissioner had

            3   ample evidence to support his ruling.  The Court clearly made a

            4   factual determination that Ms. DOE was not being left alone

            5   by Mr. Tompkins.  Seems to have, by my reading, not necessarily

            6   because I looked at it in the pleadings, but it looks to me like

            7   the Commissioner's decision was probably bolstered by

            8   Mr. Tompkins' own commentary and testimony at the hearing and

            9   the pleadings that he filed to the effect that he wasn't leaving

           10   her alone.  So I'm satisfied the Commissioner had ample evidence

           11   to support his ruling, and the evidence frankly to a great

           12   extent was provided by Mr. Tompkins himself.

           13             The Superior Court today then does not have authority,

           14   acting in an appellate capacity, to review a trial court's

           15   factual findings, and I made clear that those findings were

           16   definite, and they're supported.

           17             There's a suggestion that perhaps Mr. Tompkins was

           18   denied his due process rights.  Sometimes that's commentary

           19   that's thrown out to see what part of it will stick.  The Court

           20   takes due process very seriously.  I'm satisfied here that

           21   Mr. Tompkins had a full and fair hearing.  The fact that

           22   Mr. Tompkins frankly doesn't like the end result, that doesn't

           23   equate to a denial of due process on his side.

           24             The fact that the Commissioner didn't allow

           25   Mr. Tompkins to cross-examine Ms. DOE, I'm satisfied that


                                                                               5

            1   theory is without merit.  The case is a civil case.  It is not a

            2   criminal case.  There is no liberty interest at stake for

            3   Mr. Tompkins.  It's a civil proceeding, and the confrontation

            4   clause doesn't apply.  The Commissioner didn't deny Mr. Tompkins

            5   any due process in that regard, and the Commissioner wasn't

            6   required to allow Mr. Tompkins to cross-examine a witness to the

            7   extent that he apparently thinks he was entitled to.

            8             I am satisfied that Mr. Tompkins has failed to

            9   demonstrate any issues here today that warrant vacating the

           10   order for protection and/or doing anything other than leaving

           11   that order in full force and effect.  The appeal has been fully

           12   heard by the Court today.  I've read through all of the volumes.

           13   I'm satisfied I have a complete understanding of what the Court

           14   did below.  The appeal is forthwith dismissed.

           15             Counsel, I'm going to be reserving, for renewal on

           16   either of your respective motions, an opportunity to take a look

           17   at respective documentation you would like stricken from the

           18   file.  I have some concerns, frankly, about some of the

           19   paperwork that was filed, what I would imagine amounts to

           20   probably hundreds of pages of documentation that a good part of

           21   I had real questions about how it happened to make its way into

           22   the file.  But I'm not going to do that today.  And for me to

           23   sign an order that strikes out some pleadings in general or

           24   pleadings, Mr. Naccarato, that might reference you would be just

           25   an absolutely voluminous task for the clerk's office to


                                                                               6 

            1   undertake.  So before I start making those kinds of orders, I'm

            2   going to want to be clear about what it is that should come out

            3   of the file, and I'm going to want both sides to fully brief the

            4   Court as to why they should be out of the file before we get to

            5   that point.

            6             I'm also going to reserve for that hearing, if counsel

            7   so choose, the opportunity to request fees and costs associated

            8   with that process, but I won't be ordering any fees.  I won't be

            9   ordering any sanctions today.

           10             Counsel, can you put together and order that will

           11   encompass today's ruling, and I'll be happy to sign it as soon

           12   as you've got it put together.

           13             MR. WALL:  Thank you, your Honor.

           14             MR. NACCARATO:  Thank you, your Honor.

           15             THE COURT:  Thank you very much.

           16

           17                                   (End of proceedings.)



                                                                               7
            1                        C E R T I F I C A T E

            2

            3        I, CRYSTAL L. HICKS, do hereby certify:

            4        That I am an Official Court Reporter for the Spokane County

            5   Superior Court, Department No. 5, at Spokane, Washington;

            6             That the foregoing proceedings were taken on the date

            7   and time and place as shown on the cover page hereto;

            8             That the foregoing proceedings are a full, true, and

            9   accurate transcription of the requested proceedings, duly

           10   transcribed by me or under my direction.

           11             I do further certify that I am not a relative of,

           12   employee of, or counsel for any of said parties, or otherwise

           13   interested in the event of said proceedings.

           14             DATED this 24th day of March, 2008.


           21
                                                CRYSTAL L. HICKS, CCR
           22                                   Official Court Reporter
                                                Spokane, Washington



                                                                               8

============================================================

Judge Profile: Dishonorable Judge Salvatore (Sam) F. Cozza
Sam F. Cozza Co. J.
1116 W. Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.)
Experience & Credentials 
University Gonzaga University, B.A. 
Law School University of Washington, J.D. 
Admitted 1981 
ISLN 908142444

Member Name: Sam F. Cozza WSBA Bar #: 11609
Firm or Employer: Spokane Co Superior Court Admit Date: 5/12/1981
Address: 1116 W Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA  99260-0350
United States Status: Judicial
Phone: (509) 477-4795
Fax: (509) 477-5714

Superior Court Spokane County, WA - Dept. 6 Dishonorable Salvatore  F. Cozza
Superior Court Judge
Courtroom Fourth Floor Annex
Current Assignment: Family Law Judge
Elected: November, 1996
Judicial Assistant: John Mueller, 509-477-4795
Court Reporter: Samantha Drummond, 509-477-4413 

PAGE # 1


1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE

2

3 Re the Guardianship of: )

4 STEPHANIE E. DOE, )

5 An Incapacitated Person, ) NO. 98-4-01002-1_)

6

7

8 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

9

10

11 THE COURT: The Honorable Salvatore F. Cozza

12 DATE: 23 October 2008

13 REPORTER: Samantha A. Drummond, CSR, RPR

14 West 1116 Broadway, Department 6 + Spokane, WA 99260-0350

15 (509) 477-4413

17

18 FOR CHARLOTTE DOE: FOR RANDLES TOMPKINS:

19 Mr. Aaron M. Naccarato Mr. Randles P. Tompkins

20 Attorney at Law Pro Se

601 South Division Post Office Box 18010

21 Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane, WA 99228

PG # 2

1 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

2

3 MR. NACCARATO: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Good afternoon.

5 MR. TOMPKINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: I will take this up here in just

7 a moment.

8 At this time, we will take up the matter of In Re

9 the Guardianship of Stephanie E. DOE, D-O-E. It

10 is case number 98-4-01002-1.

11 The matter comes before the Court under a couple

12 of issues. One, we have a motion for revision of a

13 decision made by court commissioner in this matter. The

14 decision was entered by the commissioner back on --

15 well, the reconsideration most recently was denied on

16 September 30th, and the matter was set for today's

17 docket. We also have a motion for injunction requested

18 by Mr. Naccarato on behalf of the guardian in this case.

19 Responding today is Mr. Tompkins, pro se.

20 I will give each side ten minutes in total for

21 these matters.

22 Mr. Tompkins, it is your motion for revision, so

23 you get to go first.

24 MR. TOMPKINS: Okay, Your Honor. You have

25 the documents that I -- PG # 3

1 THE COURT: I got them all.

2 MR. TOMPKINS: The twenty-one pages that I

3 placed in front of you today are in the court files from

4 over a year to two years ago, so it is nothing new. I

5 put them together so that you could actually see these

6 documents for a year, some of them two years, so that

7 way you don't have to go through a thousand page file to

8 see all of this.

9 THE COURT: Okay.

10 MR. TOMPKINS: Actually, I have asked to

11 have a hearing based on the fact that the other side

12 here has perjured themselves --

13 THE COURT: Restrict yourself as to why do

14 you think the commissioner's decision was in error.

15 MR. TOMPKINS: I was not granted an actual

16 hearing. The commissioner just signed a piece of paper.

17 There was actually no hearing to begin with. He just

18 said, You can't have a hearing. I requested a hearing

19 by law under the mandatory reporter act and the fact

20 that the mother has committed fraud with the Department

21 of Labor. She falsified claims regarding sexual assault

22 and tried to defraud the State of Washington out of

23 money.

24 This case has been in court for over three years.

25 So on the twenty-one pages here, I can actually show you PG # 4

1 where the mother makes the statement. Then I got a

2 statement from the other side saying that that is not

3 true.

4 On page 14, on line number 2, she said, "Randles

5 has gone to the Spokane Association of Realtors trying

6 to cause damage to the guardian by making false

7 accusations. Note: The only time the guardian has

8 spoken to Randles was when he represented himself in

9 court..." On page 16, there is a letter from the

10 Association of Realtors that I have never been in that

11 office before and I did not do what she said I did, even

12 though she told the guardian program that I did.

13 On page 15, she filed a statement here with the

14 Department of Labor and Industries asking for crime

15 victims compensation, saying that her daughter was

16 assaulted on a certain date. But in the previous court

17 testimony, she said that Steve Lefler spent the entire

18 day with Stephanie on that day. So the Court actually

19 said that that was considered perjury and she falsified

20 a claim with the Department of Labor.

21 She also said I tried to obtain cell phone

22 records from the guardianship files. I was in a

23 criminal trial. The cell phone records were obtained,

24 which is copy -- page 17. That was obtained by my

25 prosecuting -- public defender obtained the records to PG # 5

1 prove that the mother had lied, falsifying a police

2 report, stating that I called her on February 2nd, 2006.

3 I have included pages 18, 19, 20 and 21. You can

4 actually see the cell phone records of the calls that I

5 made. Even though the police report which you have, the

6 file, over a thousand pages, the guardian stating that I

7 had called her on February 2nd, I did not make any

8 calls.

9 During the criminal trial, Judge John Cooney

10 stated that all charges were going to be dropped for

11 false arrest for stalking because it appeared that all

12 files by Charlotte DOE and Attorney Naccarato in

13 the case were perjured and nothing was true. In the

14 first pages, 1, 2, 3 and 4, Attorney Naccarato actually

15 made a statement on page 6, he made a declaration here,

16 page 6 and page 7, and then I have addressed each one of

17 those issues. Page 7 says I am representing the

18 guardianship. Then I highlighted -- each page has a

19 corresponding number to what actually was said, which

20 is --

21 I can give you an example. Number four on page

22 7, Mr. Tompkins' motions are baseless seeking removal of

23 the guardian, on number four. Then if we go to page 3,

24 then I address that issue there; she had actually

25 falsified documents to the Department of Labor to try to PG # 6

1 commit fraud to the State. So it wasn't an actual basis

2 for a motion.

3 But, anyway, if you had the time, you could go

4 through each section.

5 The other one was, Mr. Tompkins -- number six on

6 page 7, "Mr. Tompkins has already complained to Adult

7 Protective Services regarding Ms. DOE's care of

8 Ms. S. DOE. APS conducted an investigation into Mr.

9 Tompkins' baseless accusations and concluded that Ms.

10 C. DOE was not abusing Ms. S. DOE." That is not a

11 true statement. Stephanie DOE herself asked me to

12 get help for her. By law, as a licensed nurse under the

13 State of Washington, I am required to report that she

14 told me she was being abused. On page -- I have my

15 current license inside here, Your Honor. It is on page

16 --

17 THE COURT: Just to clarify, Mr. Tompkins,

18 it appears that you are not related or have any

19 relationship with this person other than --

20 MR. TOMPKINS: A past relationship.

21 THE COURT: -- other than the fact that you

22 claim a past relationship.

23 I will ask you a simple question; what business

24 is this of yours?

25 MR. TOMPKINS: She has perjured herself in PG # 7

1 court --

2 THE COURT: No. What interest --

3 MR. TOMPKINS: It is preventing me from

4 going back to work because of her false claims. She has

5 another false claim based on perjured testimony --

6 THE COURT: As I understand it, you have

7 taken those to the higher courts, and those have all

8 been rejected in terms of your appeals, have they not?

9 MR. TOMPKINS: They are still in the higher

10 court, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: But so far, no luck; true?

12 MR. TOMPKINS: I am in Supreme Court now.

13 THE COURT: And that is the last stop.

14 Right?

15 MR. TOMPKINS: It goes to Washington D.C.

16 after that is my understanding. I have not been allowed

17 to cross examine any witnesses or call any witnesses at

18 all on my behalf. There hasn't been any actual trial of

19 any person where we could actually cross examine

20 witnesses to go against this testimony. So even though

21 the Courts in Spokane are ruling against me, we are not

22 actually having a hearing where I can call witnesses to

23 prove that everything I said is true. I have got

24 documents right here to show you --

25 THE COURT: I will give you a minute or two PG # 8

1 to respond. Let me hear from Mr. Naccarato.

2 Mr. Naccarato, you can address your issue for

3 injunction at this time.

4 MR. NACCARATO: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 Well, Your Honor, quite frankly, I believe that

6 the documents that Mr. Tompkins has filed speak volumes.

7 He has no business being in this file. There is no

8 relationship. He has indicated that, as a concerned

9 citizen and as a registered nursing assistant, he is

10 required by law. This issue has been dealt with by I

11 believe six courts now, all unsuccessfully on Mr.

12 Tompkins' part.

13 Point blank, he needs to let it go, drop it. He

14 continues just clogging up the court files with all of

15 this just garbage.

16 If you look at the latest documents that he just

17 filed today, he has posted Stephanie's Social Security

18 all over the place, Social Security number. It is to

19 the point now, Your Honor, where the family is just

20 terrified of anything and everything that they are going

21 to do because he continues looking at everything that

22 they are doing. He is reportedly hovering on that file

23 almost on a daily basis just waiting for some nugget of

24 information that he believes is going to magically

25 appear that is going to be the a-ha moment and show what PG # 9

1 he has been trying to say for three years and, quite

2 frankly, hasn't done anything.

3 I cited case law and statutory authority. The

4 Yurtis case I believe is quite telling that the Court

5 has the authority to determine a litigant is vexatious

6 and bar access to the court system. If he wants to

7 continue doing this, Charlotte DOE, as the

8 guardian for Ms.S. DOE, would request court permission

9 to do so, so we can stop wasting tax dollars that are

10 going into all of these ridiculous motions, all of these

11 ridiculous filings. It is baseless. He needs to let it

12 go.

13 With your permission, Your Honor, I would hand up

14 a portion of --

15 THE COURT: I think most of that has been

16 attached to the file material.

17 MR. NACCARATO: Is this the web site

18 information?

19 THE COURT: I have seen enough there I think

20 to understand your point, counsel.

21 MR. NACCARATO: Thank you, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Tompkins.

23 MR. TOMPKINS: I would like to make an

24 objection here first, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: No. Just -- PG # 10

1 MR. TOMPKINS: This is a motion, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: No more motions; your last two

3 minutes of response here.

4 MR. TOMPKINS: This motion is the fact that

5 I was not served for this injunction in a timely manner

6 and that he cannot have this here before the Court

7 today. He is supposed to be responding --

8 THE COURT: I have allowed him to join the

9 matter for argument for convenience sake, since

10 everybody is here.

11 Go ahead.

12 MR. TOMPKINS: He served me by mail. By

13 law, I am entitled to three days of mail and five days

14 of court time. Today's date is not timely on this

15 matter. This is a motion to have timely service in this

16 matter. He can't talk about that particular -- I would

17 like to present it to the Court.

18 THE COURT: You can give it to the bailiff.

19 MR. TOMPKINS: The law states that I have

20 eight days. This is not day eight. He mailed it on the

21 16th. I didn't receive it until Tuesday. I have five

22 court days plus three days by mail. I got the court

23 rules here. I have got local Spokane Court Rules,

24 Spokane County Superior Court. It is LAR 0.7. Any

25 copies mailed will be served within at least five days PG # 11

1 plus an additional three days will be added for service

2 by mail.

3 This service is not timely. He cannot actually

4 talk today about what he just said.

5 THE COURT: Thank you.

6 This is a very unusual case, probably one of the

7 most unusual ones that I have seen.

8 Looking at Commissioner Valente's letter of

9 September 6, 2008, I quote, in relevant portion here,

10 quote, It seems that you have been persistently

11 litigating various matters with the guardian for several

12 years. It also appears you are very unsuccessful. The

13 court has issued protective orders in favor of Ms.

14 S. DOE requiring that you have no contact with her. It

15 appears you have filed similar grievances with the Adult

16 Protective Services. Frankly, it does not seem that

17 your filings serve any purpose other than to harass and

18 intimidate the guardian. The court continues to monitor

19 the financial affairs of the guardianship, unquote.

20 MR. TOMPKINS: That is not a true statement,

21 Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: You are not to say one more

23 word. I am giving my decision now.

24 MR. TOMPKINS: Thank you, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: All right. You know, I think, PG # 12 

1 at best, Mr. Tompkins can be characterized as an

2 intermeddler. At worst, I think you are obsessed with

3 this woman. You need to get a life. You need to leave

4 these people alone. Mind your own business. Leave them

5 alone. Your web site says it all; Spokanestalker.com.

6 That is what you are; you are a stalker. Leave these

7 people alone.

8 The commissioner's decision is upheld. The

9 injunction is granted. If you violate that injunction,

10 you are going to be a guest over at our hotel across the

11 way, and you'd better bring a toothbrush. You get me on

12 that? Leave them alone. Understood? That just calls

13 for a "yes" or 'no' answer. Do you understand what I am

14 saying? Do you understand what jail is?

15 MR. TOMPKINS: Yes, Your Honor, I do.

16 THE COURT: Leave them alone.

17 MR. TOMPKINS: I still have court cases in

18 court.

19 THE COURT: You can take them to the State

20 Supreme Court; you can take them to the U.S. Supreme

21 Court. As far as this Court is concerned, you are done.

22 Leave these people alone.

23 I will sign the order. I am telling you, if you

24 violate that, if you don't take this web site down, if

25 you keep bothering these people, you are going to be our PG # 13

1 guest over there.

2 MR. TOMPKINS: What about my motion, Your

3 Honor, about --

4 THE COURT: That is all. Decision is made.

5 I will sign your order.

6 MR. NACCARATO: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 (End of Verbatim Report of Proceedings.)

=============================================================

Judge Profile: Dishonorable Judge Salvatore (Sam) F. Cozza
Sam F. Cozza Co. J.
1116 W. Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.)
Experience & Credentials 
University Gonzaga University, B.A. 
Law School University of Washington, J.D. 
Admitted 1981 
ISLN 908142444

Member Name: Sam F. Cozza WSBA Bar #: 11609
Firm or Employer: Spokane Co Superior Court Admit Date: 5/12/1981
Address: 1116 W Broadway Ave
Spokane, WA  99260-0350
United States Status: Judicial
Phone: (509) 477-4795
Fax: (509) 477-5714

Superior Court Spokane County, WA - Dept. 6 Dishonorable Salvatore  F. Cozza
Superior Court Judge
Courtroom Fourth Floor Annex
Current Assignment: Family Law Judge
Elected: November, 1996
Judicial Assistant: John Mueller, 509-477-4795
Court Reporter: Samantha Drummond, 509-477-4413

PAGE # 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE

2

3 Re the Guardianship of: )

4 STEPHANIE E. DOE, )

5 An Incapacitated Person. )NO. 98-4-01002-1

8

9 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

10

12 THE COURT: The Honorable Salvatore F. Cozza

13 DATE: 21 November 2008

14 REPORTER: Samantha A. Drummond, CSR, RPR

West 1116 Broadway, Department 6

15 Spokane, WA 99260-0350 + (509) 477-4413

16

19 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANT:

20 Mr. Aaron M. Naccarato Randles P. Tompkins

Attorney at Law Pro Se

21 601 South Division Street Post Office Box 18010

Spokane, WA 99202 Spokane, WA 99228

22

23

24

25

PG # 2

1 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

2

3 THE COURT: We are here this morning in the

4 matter of the guardianship of Stephanie DOE. It is

5 case number 98-4-01002-1. Present are Mr. Naccarato,

6 who represents the estate. Also present is Mr.

7 Tompkins, who is the subject of certain injunctive

8 action.

9 It is my understanding that the guardian here,

10 through Mr. Naccarato, is asking to lift some of the

11 restrictions that were originally placed on Mr.

12 Tompkins.

13 Mr. Naccarato?

14 MR. NACCARATO: Thank you, Your Honor.

15 That is exactly correct. The original order that

16 was issued against Mr. Tompkins prohibited him from

17 posting all web sites is what the order said. It was

18 later discovered that Mr. Tompkins actually does have

19 some, and I hate to use the term "legitimate" web sites

20 but web sites that don't deal with Ms. S. DOE, Mrs.

21 C. DOE and myself. Therefore, Your Honor, we believe

22 that that does not adequately reflect the intent of the

23 Court, that he should be allowed to maintain those web

24 sites, which I believe deal with record sales or the

25 like. PG # 3

1 So the proposed order that we have just

2 specifically mentions the Spokane Stalker web site and

3 the Valentine's Day web site.

4 Additionally, Your Honor, the amended order also

5 will allow Mr. Tompkins the opportunity to appeal the

6 injunction.

7 That is, essentially, the difference between the

8 proposed order and the order that was originally

9 entered.

10 THE COURT: So the restriction on filing is

11 lifted so he has the ability to file notice of appeal

12 and related paperwork?

13 MR. NACCARATO: Just the appeal. The appeal

14 is the only restriction that would be lifted without

15 approval of the Court. Any other filings or such would

16 still require approval by the Court.

17 THE COURT: Thank you.

18 Mr. Tompkins, they want to lift some of the

19 restrictions on you. Is that okay by you?

20 MR. TOMPKINS: I agree with part of that.

21 She had it up there by your desk.

22 I have a motion here that I would actually like

23 you to look at that I feel the injunction was not fair

24 and should not have been issued under the guidelines of

25 the court rules without me having witnesses and a chance PG # 4

1 to defend myself, not timely service, and the fact that

2 no bond was posted, and there was no complaint or

3 summons filed by Naccarato in this matter for a civil

4 procedure.

5 THE COURT: Anything else on that?

6 MR. TOMPKINS: I just don't know what to

7 say, per se, but I just feel like my rights are

8 violated. I think you were doing the right thing

9 possibly, but I would like it to --

10 Mr. Naccarato also came to Mr. Wall's office and

11 said that he was going to allow me to put the web site

12 back up and that he wanted a few things taken out of it.

13 He said that he thought you had overstepped your bounds

14 himself in Mr. Wall's office. Under the Constitution of

15 the United States, I do not know what your actual

16 authority is, but I do not know if you can actually shut

17 down web sites in the Philippines, Thailand, Canada,

18 because I was under the impression that this was a

19 guardianship action that you have the power to rule on.

20 I am not a guardianship; I am a third party. That was

21 my understanding. Maybe I am incorrect, but I am not

22 sure.

23 THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Naccarato?

24 MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: One thing at a time here. PG # 5

1 The original injunction, as it turns out, was

2 over broad. The narrowing of the restrictions as

3 requested by Mr. Naccarato is appropriate. He can deal

4 with whatever other business he wants on his web sites

5 that doesn't have to do with this guardianship or the

6 people involved in it. Certainly, he can file a notice

7 of appeal on that to be permissible, because he has a

8 right to do that.

9 Now, with regards to Mr. Tompkins' counter

10 motion, leaving aside some issues on notice and

11 procedure and things like that, I will deal with it

12 here, because I think it is appropriate to do that. It

13 was within the Court's authority to do that. It is

14 within the Court's injunctive and equity powers to do

15 that.

16 I felt that you need to leave these people alone,

17 butt out, basically, let them live their lives. It is

18 none of your business. That is about all there is to

19 it. I can't control what happens in the Philippines and

20 all that, but I can control you. That means don't put

21 anything on your web site dealing with the guardian,

22 with Ms. S. DOE, or the parties involved in it.

23 I will sign a proposed modification on the

24 injunction, and I will sign an order if you want to

25 prepare one to deny Mr. Tompkins' motions. PG # 6

1 MR. NACCARATO: Thank you, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Could you send him a copy, Mr.

3 Naccarato?

4 MR. NACCARATO: I would. What I will do

5 right now is, after we get a signed copy, I will run to

6 the bar office and make him a copy of it and give it to

7 him. I know he has been mailed a copy of this prior.

8 THE COURT: I know, but if you would please

9 do that, that would be helpful.

10 MR. NACCARATO: I will most certainly do

11 that.

12 If I may approach, Your Honor?

13 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

14 I have signed the order.

15 I will ask Mr. Naccarato to prepare another order

16 just on a general order form, if you would, please.

17 MR. NACCARATO: Will do, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: That concludes the matter.

19 If any counsel need me, I will be in chambers.

20 MR. NACCARATO: Thank you.

21 (End of Verbatim Report of Proceedings.)

============================================================

Judge Profile: Dishonorable Judge Richard B. White
Richard B. WhiteDist. J.; Spokane County
Public Safety Building, 1100 West Mallon
Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.)
Experience & Credentials 
Practice Areas Domestic Relations Law; Personal Injury Law 
University Gonzaga University, B.A. 
Law School Gonzaga University, J.D. 
Admitted 1980 
ISLN 902799231

Member Name: Richard Bell White WSBA Bar #: 11273
Firm or Employer: Spokane Co District Ct Admit Date: 10/28/1980
Address: 1100 W Mallon Ave
Spokane, WA  99260-0150
United States Status: Judicial
Phone: (509) 477-2910
Fax: (509) 477-3666

MORNING SESSION
August 18, 2009, 9:39 a.m.

(The following proceedings occurred in open court:)

THE CLERK: Okay. We’re on the record.

THE COURT: I feel like I’m sitting way high
here in this chair. I’m Judge White. What’s your name?

MR. NACCARATO: Hello, Your Honor, Aaron
Naccarato.

THE COURT: Hello, Mr. Naccarato. We’ve met
before.

MR. NACCARATO: We have.

THE COURT: Okay. And I know nothing about
this case.

MR. NACCARATO: Well, Your Honor, what this
is is this is a renewal of a DV protection order. I don’t
know if you have the file in front of you or not.

THE COURT: I do.

MR. NACCARATO: Quite frankly, I anticipate
my case in chief will take three minutes, if even that.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

MR. NACCARATO: Your Honor, additionally, I
have--I’m going to be reliant upon the case of Spence v
Kommenski (phonetic), and I’ve got a citation here of 103

Page # 1 

Wn.App. 325, and I have—

THE COURT: Do you have a copy of that case?

MR. NACCARATO: I do have a copy of it, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: Mike, would you get that for me,
please?

MR. NACCARATO: I wasn’t sure if you would—

THE COURT: Mike will get it from you.

MR. NACCARATO: --if I may approach. And,
Your Honor, I’ve also highlighted the relevant portions.

THE COURT: I think we have a more recent
case than this in the Supremes on this issue. Don’t we?

MR. NACCARATO: If you’re referring to the
Hamilton--I believe it’s the Hamilton case, Your Honor.
The only reason I didn’t cite it, and bring it in was
because it is very, very fact specific and intensive. It-that
case directly cites to Spence v Kommenski, and so
Spence v Kommenski is still good law on the--on the exact,
precise issue that I’m going to be citing it for, which is
to renew a DV protection order.

No new allegations of DV need to be shown.
The only thing that must be shown is the existence of a
prior DV protection order, and a continuing fear of harm to

Page # 2 


the petitioner.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: And I—

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NACCARATO: --quite frankly, I believe
I have the cite to the other case, if I--if I can—

THE COURT: So your name is Mr. Tompkins?

MR. TOMPKINS: Mr. Tompkins, Your Honor, yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Tompkins, do you understand
the legal issue that he is raising?

MR. TOMPKINS: I haven’t even seen it. I’ve
asked--I was told to come here today because I’ve been
denied subpoenaing witnesses, calling witnesses. This has
been in court for four years.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. TOMPKINS: And they blocked—

THE COURT: Well, do you understand the legal
issue? You do not?

MR. TOMPKINS: I under--he’s--I don’t
know what particular cases he’s actually citing and Mr.—

THE COURT: Well, he’s saying that he has
case law that says that it is not wrong for me to reissue
the restraining order, even though there are no new acts of

Page # 3 


domestic violence since the entry of the old order. He says
there’s a case in Washington that says it’s not wrong for a
judge to do that.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

MR. TOMPKINS: I’m--I’m sure that
somebody’s actually ruled on that, but I would like
challenge that and call witnesses, and—

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TOMPKINS: --have a full hearing. I’ve
been blocked for four years. The original DV order that was
put into place was actually expired. He then issued a new
one which is not--nothing to do with Virginia Rockwood,
which is Judge Chinn.

THE COURT: But, there’s currently an order
in place now.

MR. TOMPKINS: There is an order in place
now.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TOMPKINS: And I was blocked at that
hearing from calling any witnesses. Judge—

THE COURT: Did you appeal from that?

MR. TOMPKINS: It’s still in appeal under-my
understanding, I actually filed--went up to the Supreme

Page # 4 


Court and I sent a letter to Washington State--in

Washington, D.C. Supreme Court.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TOMPKINS: And I was told that this
summer--they’re in summer recess now—

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. TOMPKINS: --and they will not make
decision for another month—

THE COURT: Yeah, yeah.

MR. TOMPKINS: --or something.

THE COURT: All right. Okay.

MR. TOMPKINS: So this case is technically
still being appealed. He’s trying to renew an issue of a
case that’s been appealed.

THE COURT: Uh-huh, uh-huh.

MR. TOMPKINS: I also asked to have the
guardian removed a year ago. This wouldn’t be coming up
today if somebody would represent Stephanie. Stephanie’s
never at the hearings. It’s always third party hearsay.

THE COURT: And this is Stephanie?

MR. TOMPKINS: No, that’s—

MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor. This is
Charlotte DOE. Stephanie has a guardianship order

Page # 5 


that’s been put in place in--since ’98 in Spokane County

Superior Court.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NACCARATO: I can grab the file if—

THE COURT: And Charlotte is—

MR. NACCARATO: And Charlotte is Stephanie’s
mother and is her legal guardian as well.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don’t you go ahead
with your argument. It sounds like he doesn’t disagree with
your claim that as a matter of law this court has the
ability to reissue an order even though there may be no new
acts of domestic violence since the last order.

MR. NACCARATO: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to--go
ahead. What would you like me to consider?

MR. NACCARATO: Well, Your Honor, and if I
may just--just a point of clarification, the previous DV
protection order that was in 2007 was appealed to Superior
Court, Judge Price ruled on that. Mr. Tompkins thereafter
sought discretionary review with Division III. That was
denied.

Then he subsequently sent that up to the
Washington State Supreme Court for discretionary review as

Page # 6 


well. That was denied. And I haven’t seen any documents as

far as sending it to--to the Federal Supreme Court-

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NACCARATO: --as far as D.C.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: So, just a point of
clarification.

THE COURT: All right. What else would you
like me to consider?

MR. NACCARATO: Your Honor, I have five
questions for Mrs.Charlotte DOE, and that’s—

THE COURT: Ms.Charlotte DOE, are you okay just
staying right where you’re at and being sworn under oath, as
opposed to going to the witness stand?

Would you raise your right-hand?
CHARLOTTE DOE,
Called as a witness on her own
behalf, having been first duly
sworn, testified as follows:
THE COURT: Would you like something to
drink? Okay. Tell me what your name is.
THE WITNESS: Charlotte--Charlotte
DOE.
THE COURT: D-O-E?

Page # 7


THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Correct. And your address,
please.
THE WITNESS: 36536 WEST ALL LIES, Oldman
Lake, Washington.
THE COURT: Okay. Listen carefully to your
lawyer’s questions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NACCARATO:

Q. Charlotte, Are you the guardian for Stephanie
E. DOE?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is your relationship to Stephanie?
A. I’m her mother.
Q. And as Stephanie’s guardian, have you obtained
previous domestic violence protection orders against Mr.
Tompkins?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many times have you obtained protection
orders against Mr. Tompkins?
A. Two for me, and then there was a stalking order
issued by the police.
Q. Okay. And do you have a continuing fear that Mr.

Page # 8


Tompkins will harm Stephanie?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. And why is that?
A. Over the last year, he’s continued his pursuit of
Stephanie and extended it to the internet. He had the site
says spokanestalker.com, valentine’sdaystalker.com, Kitty
Cat Books, and he distributes flyers. He continues third
party contacts and pursuits of them in records, and
Stephanie’s afraid of him, afraid to be alone, and he just
doesn’t have any limits at all.
He won’t--he won’t stop when he’s asked to,
even by the courts. He--I don’t know how he gets away
with all this, and I don’t--I’m afraid of what he’ll do
next.

MR. NACCARATO: Your Honor, that’s all the
questions I have.

THE COURT: Mr. Tompkins, do you have any
questions?

MR. TOMPKINS: Yes, Your Honor, I’d like-I’m
supposed to have--my attorney was supposed to be
present. Mr. Wall said he was going to make an appearance
here.

THE COURT: He’s not here now.

Page # 9 


MR. TOMPKINS: He’s not here now. My main
concern was the fact that I was planning on calling
witnesses and they said that at this particular hearing that
I—

THE COURT: Do you have any questions of this
witness?

MR. TOMPKINS: Okay. I’m--well, the main—

THE COURT: Let me stop you for a second.
Why isn’t Mr. Wall here?

MR. TOMPKINS: I--he said he was going to
be here. I haven’t been able to contact him yet today. I
don’t have a cell phone, so--but—

THE COURT: Counsel, have you had any
communication with Mr. Wall?

MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor, and Mr. Wall
has represented Mr. Tompkins in the past on--on the
appeal, I believe the appeal from the previous case. I’ve
received no notice of appearance, and I have not received
any telephone calls or any communication whatsoever from Mr.
Wall. So—

MR. TOMPKINS: Well, I went to ex parte on
August 11th, and they told me that Judge Walker was out of
town for the week and that I had to be at the hearing at

Page # 10

that time to then have my subpoenas and be able to call—
THE COURT: Do you know if there’s been any
motions to withdraw as counsel?

MR. TOMPKINS: He told me that he would file
the notice of appearance as--when he appeared here today.
I asked him if he was going to file it ahead of time. He
said for me to go ahead and start, and that he would be
here.

THE COURT: Oh, he told you to go ahead and
start today?

MR. TOMPKINS: Because I’m supposed to be
able to get to call my witnesses—

THE COURT: So the answer is yes, he did tell
me to go ahead and start today?

MR. TOMPKINS: Well, he didn’t actually say
that directly. He said that he would be here. I have--I
talked to him on Thursday. So—

THE COURT: But, counsel, how long--was the
last communication you had with Mr. Wall?

MR. NACCARATO: Oh, I believe the last
communication I had with Mr. Wall was at a hearing in front
of Judge Cozza, I believe September, possibly October of
last year—

Page # 11 


THE COURT: Oh.
MR. NACCARATO: --was the last time that I

spoke with Mr. Wall.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I’m—
MR. TOMPKINS: Well, anyway—
THE COURT: --there’s been no notice of

appearance. So, Mr. Tompkins, ask questions to her—
MR. TOMPKINS: Okay.
THE COURT: --if you have any.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. TOMPKINS:

Q. The main question would be is Stephanie E. DOE,
herself asked me to get help for her, that you were abusing
her in the first place. And under the nursing statute I
filed the original report.
THE COURT: That’s not a question.
MR. TOMPKINS: Okay. Okay. Excuse me.
Okay.

Q. You--how would I put it then? The question is
you actually let people date Stephanie E. DOE?
MR. NACCARATO: It’s outside the scope, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Page # 12


MR. TOMPKINS: Okay. Okay. It’s kind of
hard. I’m trying to--that’s why Mr. Wall supposed to be
here. Basically what’s going--I don’t know, I guess I
can’t--I have to--I guess I can just--the main
consideration here that judge—

THE COURT: Any questions?

MR. TOMPKINS: I’d like to ask questions, but
I’m not sure which ones to ask, so—

THE COURT: Well, you have to ask them now,
because I’ve got to make a decision. This is your chance to
cross-examine her. Do you have any questions?

MR. TOMPKINS: Okay.

Q. All the statements that you’ve actually made in
this case are, I considered perjured—

THE COURT: Got to ask it in—

MR. NACCARATO: You’re—

THE COURT: --a question form.

MR. TOMPKINS: Okay. I guess--I’m not sure
what to—

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, do you rest

your case?
MR. NACCARATO: Yes, Your Honor, I do.
THE COURT: All right. Sir, do you want to

Page # 13


testify?

MR. TOMPKINS: I would like to call
witnesses. I was told that—

THE COURT: Do you have any witnesses to
call?

MR. TOMPKINS: I--I have the subpoenas
here. I was told that I couldn’t have them filed in ex
parte court and I had to appear here today to have the
witnesses called.

THE COURT: All right. You don’t have any
witnesses to call today?

MR. TOMPKINS: I can’t call them today,
because I haven’t got the subpoena signed. I went to ex
parte and they said that I had to be here—

THE COURT: They denied it. All right.
That’s their--that’s some other judge’s decision. I can’t
do anything about that. So, do you want to testify? Do you
want to take--be under oath and testify today? If you do
he’ll have the right to cross-examine you.

MR. TOMPKINS: I’d like to testify, but I’m
not sure exactly what to—

THE COURT: It’s up to you.

MR. TOMPKINS: --to ask. The main thing

Page # 14 


I’d like to ask the court is I would—

THE COURT: All right. You’re already
repeating.

MR. TOMPKINS: Okay.

THE COURT: I just need you to go with me on
this. Do you want to testify today?

MR. TOMPKINS: Um, I guess I’ll not testify
today then.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Counsel, final
argument.

MR. NACCARATO: Your Honor, as I previously
mentioned under Spence v Kommenski, no need--no new
showing of DV is necessary for--to renew a DV protection
order. The only thing that’s required is the existence of
previous DV protection orders, which Mrs.C. DOE has
testified there has been two previous DV protection orders
that she, herself has obtained.

There’s also been a third one that was
obtained during the course of a--some stalking charges
that were pressed against Mr. Tompkins. That DV protection
order was rescinded after the charges were dropped, however,
there so--there has been three DV protection orders in
place against Mr. Tompkins.

Page # 15 


The--Mrs. C. DOE testified that she has
very real concerns of future imminent harm to Ms. S. DOE if
this new protection is not granted. That came from the fact
that Mrs.--or, excuse me, that Mr. Tompkins created
websites called spokanestalker.com, valentine’sday
stalker.com. He has not left her alone.

I believe that the subpoenas themselves
actually speak volumes about Mr. Tompkins course of conduct.
This has been ongoing for close to four years now, and
it’s--unfortunately it’s going to be a vicious, vicious
cycle, unless Mrs. C. DOE is--is granted a permanent
protection order completely barring Mr. Tompkins from having
any contact with either Ms. S. DOE, Ms. C. DOE, or even
third parties, for that matter. So, Your Honor, Mrs.
C. DOE requests the reissuance of a--of the DV
protection order for a duration of permanent.

Additionally, Your Honor—

THE COURT: Permanent? Do you think I can do
a permanent one, or doesn’t it have to be renewed every—

MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor, under the
statute that I’ve reviewed and some of the case law I’ve
seen as well that there is the basis for issuing a permanent
protection order under 26.50.060. It grants the court the

Page # 16


authority to issue a permanent injunction and--or
permanent protection order. And it also grants the court
the--the authority to do other acts which it deems are
just and necessary, under the facts of the case.

And, additionally, Your Honor, under RCW
26.50.060—

THE COURT: Can I have Title 26? Is that
what you’re citing me to—

MR. NACCARATO: It is exactly.

THE COURT: --to the permanent 26?

MR. NACCARATO: 26.50.060. And pursuant to
that statute, Your Honor, Mrs. C. DOE is also asking for
$500 in attorney’s fees for being required to appear and
seek this protection order.

And, additionally, Your Honor—

THE COURT: Hold on just a second.

MR. NACCARATO: --sure.

THE COURT: 26.50.0—

MR. NACCARATO: 060. And I believe it’s subparen
two, if I’m not mistaken.

THE COURT: If a protection order restrains
the respondent from contacting the respondent’s minor
children, the restraint shall be for a fixed period not to

Page # 17 


exceed one year. With regard to other relief, if the
petitioner has petitioned for relief on his or her own
behalf, or on behalf of petitioner’s family, or household
members, or minor children, and the court finds respondent
is likely to resume acts of domestic violence against
petitioner, or the petitioner’s family, or household
members, or minor children when the order expires, the court
may either grant relief for a fixed period, or enter a
permanent order of protection.

Is that what you’re—

MR. NACCARATO: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else you want me
to read?

MR. NACCARATO: Yes, Your Honor.
Additionally, Mrs. C. DOE is requesting that—

THE COURT: Attorney’s fees.

MR. NACCARATO: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Attorney’s fees.

MR. NACCARATO: Attorney’s fees—

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NACCARATO: --which is provided, I
believe under sub-paren three or four.

THE COURT: How did you get to the $500

Page # 18 


number?

MR. NACCARATO: Your Honor, I calculated, I
spent four hours, and my hourly rate is $125 per hour. I
spent four hours preparing the documents, researching the
materials, reviewing the documents that Mr. Tompkins
provided to my office, preparing for today’s hearing, and
attending today’s hearing.

THE COURT: I’m looking for the subsection on
attorney’s fees. It says the court may award court costs,
service fees and reasonable attorney’s fees as provided in
subsection 1(f). Then I go to 1(f), and it simply says
order other relief as deems necessary for the protection of
the petitioner and other family or household members sought
to be protected.

MR. NACCARATO: I will admit, Your Honor,
that sometimes the statute can be a little bit screwy.

THE COURT: Yeah, now, I see the next one.
It should refer to (g) also, require respondent to pay the
administrative court costs and service fees as established
by the county or municipality, including the expense and to
reimburse petitioner for costs incurred in bringing the
action, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: I will represent to the court

Page # 19


there are no costs. There are no costs as far as—

THE COURT: Oh, you did—

MR. NACCARATO: --filing fees or service
fees.

THE COURT: I thought I recognized the names
of the people that had served it. Peter Sveningson
(phonetic), he’s—

MR. NACCARATO: He’s a—

THE COURT: --a Boston attorney.

MR. NACCARATO: --yeah, he’s a--he--at
my previous law firm, the Layman law firm, he was a law
clerk there.

THE COURT: Oh, and then he went to work for
Clay Randall (phone), and now he’s at the University of
Washington getting his LM, right?

MR. NACCARATO: He is, yeah. He’s--so, I—

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: --I didn’t know he was at
UW, but I have--I’ve kind of lost contact with him—

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: --but, he was with the
Layman law firm—

THE COURT: Okay.

Page # 20

MR. NACCARATO: --and then I had an
attorney, a friend of mine, James Stude (phonetic), who’s
also an attorney.
THE COURT: I saw that, too.

MR. NACCARATO: He served Mr. Tompkins.

THE COURT: And they didn’t charge you.

MR. NACCARATO: And, no, he did not charge
me.

THE COURT: No fee on that. Okay. So, your
position is we’re entitled to a permanent restraining order,
and you cited case law, and you’ve--and you’ve also prayed
for your--your attorney’s fees—

MR. NACCARATO: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: $500, at four hours at 125 an
hour.

MR. NACCARATO: Correct, and there’s also an
additional provision in the statute which allows the--the
court to require Mr. Tompkins to undergo counseling, DV,
domestic violence counseling pursuant to a set--set
criteria. And, Your Honor, I would submit that given the
nature of this case, the duration, Mr. Tompkins continued
antics throughout the course of this litigation that it is
appropriate for the court to award Mr. Tompkins to seek

Page # 21


counseling to try and curtail these activities.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Tompkins, is there
anything you would like me to consider?

MR. TOMPKINS: Yes, Your Honor, for closing
arguments Stephanie E. DOE is the one that asked me to get
help for her in the first place, as a licensed person under
the law. There’s never been an act of domestic violence—

THE COURT: Who’s a licensed person?

MR. TOMPKINS: I am a licensed nursing
assistant, State of Washington. She told me that her mother
was abusing her. Some of the witnesses that I tried to
call—

THE COURT: How long ago did she ask you to
do that?

MR. TOMPKINS: 2005.

THE COURT: Oh, that was four years ago.

MR. TOMPKINS: And Charlotte DOE never
filed any police reports, there’s no actual filed court
documents until after I filed with—

THE COURT: Uh-huh. So, why—

MR. TOMPKINS: --APS.

THE COURT: --why have you maintained these
websites?

Page # 22 


MR. TOMPKINS: The websites that he said have
been removed. He did not tell you that, but Judge Cozza
ordered those sites taken down.

THE COURT: Why did you create them in the
first place?

MR. TOMPKINS: To try to expose some of the
corruption of the court for the fact that some of the court
files have been destroyed. Judge Cozza’s actually blocked
the court files from being presented to you here today.

THE COURT: Do you have a job, sir?

MR. TOMPKINS: I’ve been forced not to work
because of this continuing DV order, I’m not allowed to
work.

THE COURT: How do you support yourself?

MR. TOMPKINS: The State of Washington said
they will pay me for the rest of my life, $1,000 a month,
plus food stamps.

THE COURT: Is it—

MR. TOMPKINS: I get GAU—

THE COURT: --GAU?

MR. TOMPKINS: --I get--I’m also getting
a VA pension—

THE COURT: Okay.

Page # 23 


MR. TOMPKINS: --because of the fact that
I’m not allowed to now work forever because of this
continuing—

THE COURT: Well, you wouldn’t get a VA
pension if you didn’t--if you weren’t allowed to work.
You must have a disability?

MR. TOMPKINS: No, disability. The VA
pension is based upon the fact that the court denied me a
right to cross-examine witnesses and they denied me housing,
so the VA said because they actually--they took my house,
they took my motorcycle, they seized my assets, they’ve
taken most of my stuff that I’ve owned, even though I’m
following the law.

Stephanie E. DOE’s never signed any
documents. Everything is just Charlotte DOE saying
she says, she says. That’s not proof—

THE COURT: How long has it been since you’ve
communicated with Stephanie?

MR. TOMPKINS: I have never--the last time
I seen her was in 2005. I haven’t called her, haven’t
contacted her, even when the protection order had expired, I
had not contacted her. The reason the criminal charges were
dismissed is because they said that Charlotte DOE had

Page # 24 


actually perjured herself.

He keeps bringing up Dr. Asbey (phonetic),
Dr. Asbey was at my nursing license hearing. They tried to
take away my nursing license, which I still maintain. I
don’t work in it, because I can’t work, but I’ve still
maintained the license. He said that I submitted bizarre
documents to that doctor. I had a right to explain to the
doctor that Charlotte DOE had actually lied to him at
the hearing in the first place, and that’s why I had
actually contacted—

THE COURT: I notice that—

MR. TOMPKINS: --so, the main purpose of
the website is to expose documents that have been removed
from the court files, some of the transcripts from the
previous court files have disappeared, so I’ve actually got
book contract. The website is being published under--I’m
actually publishing a book now called Valentine’s Day on
Trial.com. It’s being printed in Canada, outside the United
States. And it’s going to include all the documents that
the court has actually destroyed.

THE COURT: Do you have a mental health issue
yourself?

MR. TOMPKINS: No, I do not. I’m not being

Page # 25 


seen for any mental health issues. I’ve had five doctors
see me. They said the IQ is 121. I worked on nuclear
submarines as an electronic technician.

THE COURT: Had you ever had a mental health
diagnosis from somebody?

MR. TOMPKINS: No, I have not. I’m not
taking any medications for it, never have been diagnosed
with it.

THE COURT: And never did? Never did take
any medication?

MR. TOMPKINS: No medications, no psychotic.
I worked at Boeing before all this started. Before this got
going—

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. TOMPKINS: --I actually worked out at
the Department of Corrections at Airway Heights in 2005.

THE COURT: I noticed that you call yourself
professor. What does that mean?

MR. TOMPKINS: It’s--I’m a--I’ve got a
degree in electronics—

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TOMPKINS: --and I’m also a music
historian of the ‘60s. I have a--I’ve been in the music

Page # 26


business for quite a few years.

THE COURT: So, where does the name professor
come from?

MR. TOMPKINS: It was just a title that was
given to me, that everybody calls me the professor, the
music professor of that—

THE COURT: I see.

MR. TOMPKINS: --so, it was--so, I’ve got
a degree in electronics, I was nuclear submarines for 14
years, worked at Boeing making--manufacturing airplanes—

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. TOMPKINS: --they tried to have me
committed saying that I had a lawsuit still pending for
false arrest. Cindy North-Jones (phonetic) stated that she
actually said I met a stalking criteria, but I actually did
not break the law.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. TOMPKINS: And that she pre-arrested me
thinking that I met a profile.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TOMPKINS: So, the whole issue here is
the fact that there’s no signed statements, there’s never
been any signed statements, Stephanie E. DOE’s never signed

Page # 27 


nothing.

THE COURT: How long ago did you take those
websites down?

MR. TOMPKINS: When Judge Cozza ordered it in
2000--on November 24, 2008.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. TOMPKINS: So—

THE COURT: After the no--after the
restraining order was in place you maintained the websites?

MR. TOMPKINS: I had websites for record
business, I had websites for joke--the original websites,
the judge originally ordered all websites removed related to
everything, he shut down websites in the Philippines, he
shut down websites in Canada, he shut down the websites in
Great Britain.

He said he had the authority--also said
that I could not appeal--appeal his ruling which barred me
from actually filing an appeal. And then they re-amended it
a month later where they said that I could then put up some
of the websites that I’d already lost, which had nothing to
do with the domestic violence.

THE COURT: Counsel, did he take his websites
as he represents?

Page # 28 


MR. NACCARATO: That, Your Honor, is a yes
and a no question. He amended the website that night after
Judge Cozza had told him to remove it. He amended it to
disparage Judge Cozza, and after I had contacted him then it
was removed. So, in short, yes, it is down now.

He has maintained--he created another new
site, I believe it’s called Valentine’s day on trial, and
then there’s also your civil rights on trial, and I can
represent to the court that I’m monitoring it extremely
closely. It might skirt the line a little bit, but I’m not
concerned about it, because it does not contain any personal
information about Mrs.Doe, Charlotte, Doe, Stephanie, myself.
There’s no names in there.

THE COURT: What’s Stephanie’s Doe diagnosis?

MR. NACCARATO: Stephanie Doe suffered a
traumatic brain injury as a small child. I believe she was
nine years old at the time, and so—

THE COURT: She is how old now?

MR. NACCARATO: She is 32?

MS. C. DOE: Uh-huh.

MR. NACCARATO: She’s 32 now, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is she on social security
disability?

Page # 29 


MS. C. DOE: Yes.

THE COURT: And lives with you, Ma’am?

MS. C. DOE: Yes.

THE COURT: I think that’s--and does
anybody else live in the two of them?

MR. NACCARATO: Yes, Your Honor, Mrs.
DOE’s husband, Tom, who is—

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: --the--is he the trustee
of--he’s--he’s Mrs.--or Ms. S. DOE’s trustee.

THE COURT: Have any efforts been made to
contact or establish a communication between the respondent
and Ms. S. DOE since Judge Cozza’s order?

MR. NACCARATO: Yes and no. Any direct
contact between Mr. Tompkins and Ms. S. DOE, no. But, I
would also represent that the family is being extremely
cautious. She’s very--I don’t want to say sequestered,
but her--her actions are very, very guarded. She rarely
leaves the house.

THE COURT: But, what contacts have occurred
since the order—

MR. NACCARATO: Well, the only—

THE COURT: --or what efforts—

Page # 30

MR. NACCARATO: --contacts that have-have
occurred is Mr. Tompkins pulling like these subpoenas,
trying to obtain information from Stephanie, contacts
through the websites. There is--he has printed and
created a flyer, and unfortunately, Your Honor, I don’t have
a copy of it here, but that flyer did contain Stephanie’s
name, and I believe it contained her--her date of birth.
THE COURT: Is--were they in a dating
relationship at one time?

MR. NACCARATO: Yes.

THE COURT: How long?

MS. C. DOE: Well, not really.

MR. NACCARATO: Well, he categorized it as a
dating relationship.

MR. TOMPKINS: We knew each other for five
years. She dated another friend of mine--the mother
actually paid for the marriage counseling classes. She
actually let another man be engaged to get married to her,
and then supposedly when you crossed the line, or have
sexual intercourse with Stephanie, she then wants you to pay
her blackmail money. She then says oh, by the way, my
daughter’s got a guardian and you do not have the right to
date her. So, if you pay me some money, I will not put you

Page # 31 


in prison.

I--Steve Leffler (phonetic) said he would
testify that he lost over $10,000. John Leffler (phonetic)
will testify. I originally went to--I’ve been going to ex
parte. I got Judge Chinn’s ex parte orders going way back.
He was the actual judge for my criminal trial, and for him
to actually be the judge to issue the first no contact order
in the first place, when he knows that the trial was
dismissed because she had lied about everything, he had no
business even issuing the first no contact order. So, I
don’t--Judge Chinn also tried to say that I was mentally
ill, tried to issue--said I had an IQ below 60, because I
would not plead guilty to going to church. Going to church
is not domestic violence.

THE COURT: Do you have an opinion that he’s
mentally ill?

MR. NACCARATO: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Do you have any evidence of his
mental illness?

MR. NACCARATO: No, in short, no. Mr.
Tompkins did undergo a psychiatric evaluation when he was-when
there was the stalking charge pending against him, and
I believe--I believe it was April of 2006 or thereabouts,

Page # 32


there was a--there is a motion that was submitted and
approved to—

THE COURT: So there has been criminal
charges brought and have they ever--have any of them
resulted in a conviction?

MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor. He—

THE COURT: Have they all resulted in
acquittals or were they dismissals?

MR. NACCARATO: --the stalking charge was
dismissed. The prosecutor dismissed that. I will represent
that the domestic violence prosecutor’s office right now is
evaluating his actions, what he’s been doing, and evaluating
it to determine if there has been a violation of the DV
contact--no contact order that’s in place right now. I
have not had any contact with the prosecutor, so I don’t
know the status of that investigation.

THE COURT: What’s the allegation based upon?

MR. NACCARATO: Well, the websites—

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NACCARATO: --the continued contact
with third parties, distributing leaflets with Ms. S. DOE’s
name and allegations.

THE COURT: And tell me what the leaflets,

Page # 33


how does he distribute them, and--you don’t have one, but
have you seen one?

MR. NACCARATO: Oh, yes, Your Honor. I saw
it. He--he sent it to me. He sent it to me and it had—

THE COURT: How long ago did you receive it?

MR. NACCARATO: Oh—

THE COURT: Do you have a copy of it?

MR. TOMPKINS: (Inaudible)

MR. NACCARATO: --I would say probably, it
has been longer than a month ago, about that.

MR. TOMPKINS: I’m required to send it to
him, because he’s taking me to court. That’s my—

THE COURT: Is it more or less than two
months ago?

MR. NACCARATO: I would say it is probably
less than two months ago, Your Honor. Randles, do you have
a copy of that?

MR. TOMPKINS: Let me take a peek here real
quick and see what--this is the actual—

THE COURT: Mike, may I see it? Mike, may I
see it?

MR. TOMPKINS: --I can show this is the
actual flyer coming out. I have a licensed book under the

Page # 34


First Amendment of the Constitution. I’m publishing a book
on this court case. I run a licensed business as a book
publisher. I have a Library of Congress catalog number.
That is being published right now, nationally. That’s going
to be in magazines all over the United States. That is, I’m
a civil rights worker now—

THE COURT: Now, you say her name is on here
some place?

MR. TOMPKINS: No, it’s not on that
particular document. The documents, though, the court files
in the actual book will be actual court documents, which I
have a right to.

THE COURT: Did you say her name is on here
some place?

MR. NACCARATO: If I may, Your Honor. May I
approach and review that document?

THE COURT: Mike, would you take to him,
please?

MR. TOMPKINS: He’s probably talking about
the book flyer itself, which—

THE COURT: Do you have that?

MR. TOMPKINS: I don’t know if I have that.
I don’t have that, per se, because that’s not in the book,

Page # 35


but let me see.

MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor, this is not-this
is not what I’m referring to. The—

MR. TOMPKINS: The other one had all the
court case numbers on it. There’s 21 court cases now I’ve
been denied calling witnesses for 21 cases. They--all the
cases have been dismissed for nursing licenses, they’re
trying to say I’m ill, or whatever they’re trying to say.
There’s no signed—

THE COURT: That case—

MR. TOMPKINS: --statements by anybody
other than the attorney. He has perjured himself in all
these statements.

THE COURT: My whole point was I just wanted
to see—

MR. TOMPKINS: Oh.

THE COURT: --are you circulating something
that has her name on it?

MR. TOMPKINS: I don’t know--I wouldn’t say
it has her name on it, I don’t think. It just says--it
has a list of the court cases—

THE COURT: That includes her name.

MR. TOMPKINS: --but that was with--that

Page # 36 


was filed as a motion for the court that’s in trial right
now in the Court of Appeals, Division III. I--it’s an
actual court motion that I filed—

THE COURT: Okay. I’m prepared to make a
decision now. What else would you like me consider?

MR. TOMPKINS: Okay. Well, basically I’m
being barred from--Judge Cozza’s barring me from
presenting documents here today for the fact that he’s got a
restraining order on actually court files that were used
against me, which I think is unconstitutional. That--I
actually go to a court case like today, and then I’m barred
to actually have files from this case, and that there’s no
signed statements by anybody.

This is just pure retaliation, basically
because she got mad that I turned her in for trying to
blackmail. She filed falsified claims to Department of
Labor and Industries stating that she--her daughter was
attacked or something. On that date, she actually testified
in court at the other hearing that she--her daughter spent
the entire day with Steve Leffler. So, the date that she
actually claimed they tried to steal money from the State of
Washington, she spent the entire day with somebody else
which wasn’t me. So, I’m trying to basically get a hearing

Page # 37


to put a stop to this, that she keeps taking me to court
every--he said he’s going to take me to court for the rest
of my life, every two years.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All
right. I will grant the petitioner’s request for a
permanent restraining order. I’ll deny the petitioner’s
request for an attorney’s fees.

Anything further? Is there an order
prepared?

MR. NACCARATO: No, Your Honor. I can--I
can draft one.

THE COURT: Here it is.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
reissuance. This would be as the terms of the original
order, so I (inaudible) is going to change. I do have—

THE COURT: It shall not. The terms of the
original order shall, so what do I sign? This one here?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. (Inaudible)

THE COURT: And I can write in the word
permanent, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)

THE COURT: Do you want to sign this, Mr.
Tompkins, and we’ll give you a copy? You don’t have to sign

Page # 38


it if you don’t want to.

MR. TOMPKINS: That will be fine.

MR. NACCARATO: Sorry, Your Honor. So, just
for clarification the permanent protection order is granted,
attorney’s fees are denied, as well as the request for
counseling?

THE COURT: Correct. Thank you.

MR. NACCARATO: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. TOMPKINS: So who pays for the DV
counseling?

THE COURT: You don’t have to do it.

MR. TOMPKINS: Oh, I don’t have to do it, oh.
Okay.

MR. NACCARATO: You don’t have to do it.

MR. TOMPKINS: I was going say I was
wondering. And now, I do have the right to appeal your
ruling?

THE COURT: Yes, you do.

MR. TOMPKINS: Judge Cozza blocked his
appeal.

THE COURT: Yeah, I--I’m not going to enter
an order denying you your right to appeal.

MR. TOMPKINS: Oh, okay. Thank you, Your

Page # 39


Honor.

THE COURT: You’re welcome, sir.
(Hearing concluded 10:16 a.m.)

Page # 40


?  ?

============================================================

THIS STORY IS FROM COURT CASE # 268586-III + Court of Appeal=III +08-04-2008  ALL OPINION & REPORTS & STATEMENTS ARE FROM COURT CASE FILES ONLY. From Prof. Randles Psychedelic Tompkins PRO=SE / THIS IS A TRUE REPORT !    
  

In Summer of 2001, Complainant Met Miss Stephanie DOE at A Catholic Church

Dance in Spokane,Wa. At Shadle Northside Town with Steve Lefler a Long Time

Mutual Friend. I Complainant (Randles P. Tompkins) And  Stephanie DOE /

And Other Friends Over the Years Go Out to Dinner/ Movies ! Etc. From Time to  

Time. After 8 weeks or So! Steve Lefler Got Engaged To Be Married To Miss

Stephanie DOE. Steve Payed For A Diamond Ring Cost around $2,000 Dollars

or So! & also Stephanie Mother ( Charlotte DOE )  PAID For the Marriage

Counseling Classes at the Church !  Miss Stephanie DOE Now Age 31 in yrs. 

06 / 2008   Also Working Full Time at the HOPPIN CANDY SALES at WA. State Line

Charlotte DOE Said to Steve Lefler also Told John Lefler & Steve Father

Too. At A Camping Trip in Oregon State / You Must Buy A Home. At Least 2,000

Sq. Ft. ! or More If You Are Going to Marry Miss Stephanie DOE & Also You

Must Buy! Or Take Out a $ 100,000 Dollars Life Insurance Policy (Steve) also you

need to add Stephanie to your Medical Policy at Work Steve Lefler Said No I Will

Not do this or Sale my Home at All. So Over the Years Of Steve Lefler Who Live’s

At North 2??? Wall Street. Spokane, Wa. 99205 USA Steve Phone # 208-928-5753

Dating Stephanie DOE (Both Steve &Stephanie TOLD ME)Steve told Me (Randles)

He did not like to have sex very much! & Stephanie Told Me (Randles) Because of
this Iam not happy With Steve Lefler & So Stephanie Told Me  She Have Sex at

Home with Friend of Her Brother for Money? Stephanie ASK Me Randles If this is

O.K. With Me! & Would I Still Love Her ! + I Said  YES I LOVE YOU !!  & the Thing 

you did Before (WE) Started Dating is in the PAST ! & Can Not Be Changed NOW !

SomeTimes ! Mr. Steve Lefler Did Not Treat Stephanie DOE Very well at all.

Stephanie Moved in to Steve Home for a Week The House is Very Cold / Very

Little Heat / Steve Turn On the Heat to get up for Work 30 mins & then turn the

HEAT OFF !  Stephanie DOE Call Me to Talk & Ask me To Pick Her UP !

For Dinner with Me (Randles)& Dave Germain Dave said NO! So I Told Miss

Stephanie DOE… If You Get Tired of Steve ! Call Me! & You Can Come Live

with Me at My Home in Town Miss Stephanie Called Me.... but Iam Not Home !! 

So Stephanie Ask mother to Pick Her at (Casey’s Restaurant) On Monroe St.

After the Fight at Steve Home ! I Know this 1st Hand (Randles) Both Person told

me the same Thing It is that Steve is Working 7am to 3pm Monday thur Friday &

Stephanie is CLEANNING Steve Home all Day to help him. Stephanie Said

Thurday Night Can We Go Out to Dinner (Steve said No Iam Tired) O.K.  SO

Friday 3:30pm Steve Come Home / Stephanie Said can (We) Go Dancing or

Dinner Etc. (Steve said No Iam Tired) So Stephanie DOE Got MAD at Steve

Lefler & Call Me (Randles) not Home. Call Her Mother to Pick Her Up! So

Stephanie Gave Me Her Home Address & I Mailed Her a Valentines Day Cards

Feb / 06 / 04 & 05 Stephanie told me (Later) Mother did Not Give Her the Cards!
 
So From Time To Time I See Stephanie DOE at Steve Home or Sometimes We

Go Out To Dinner with Dave Germain & or Carl Forman & Me (Randles) with Steve
Lefler & Other Lady! Sometimes at Steve Home Watching Movies or Having a

Fire! Together ! Also Stephanie Call’s Steve Home & I Talk to Her! So (1) ONE Day

Before Halloween in Oct. 30-2005 I Call Steve From Dave Home and We all Plan

to Go Out To Lunch at 3pm So On Halloween Day I Get Over to Steve Home At

2:10pm To Pick Steve Up in My BLUE VAN that John Lefler Sold To Me! A

Camping Type of Van with Dark Glass inside… NICE VAN! So I Knock on the Door

at N. 2? wall St. at about 2:10 pm To Go to lunch! I Get Inside & I See Stephanie

DOE &I Say Hi !  I Sit Down in the chair by TV to Watch the Movies untell Dave

Get Home…. And Stephanie TELL ME THAT ! Steve & HER! Are Breaking Up

Because Steve Will NOT Marry HER  NOW! So I Said If Steve Lefler will not Marry

You I Will Marry You! So Miss Stephanie E. DOE Give ME HER (CELL PHONE #)

On Oct.31-2005 & Called Me On 10-31-05  Look at the Cell  # RECORDS In Court

Files in Spokane,Wa. Case # 98-4-01002-1 All 208 Pages on File in Superior Court.

Over 8,000 Calls Total So I Drive My Van to the Old Country Buffet at N. Division

St. From Steve Home with Stephanie DOE & Steve Lefler To Go To Dave

Germain Home At N. 2??? Ash St. Apt# 4 In Spokane. To Pick Him Up By 2:50pm

for the Lunch Price at the Buffet !So We All Eat at Buffet from 3;12pm to 5:20pm

OR SO ? Dave Want to Be Home by 6:00pm for the News on TV. o.k.  So Now ! 

Stephanie in my Van Going Home did not Sit with or bye Steve At All. SHE SAID  

I Do Not Want to Go In Side With STEVE!  I Said Call Me To TALK on Nov/01/2005

to Talk About Dating She Said  I  Hope I Do Not Have to Date You for 3 to 5 Years !

Like I Did With Steve.. I Said ( NO ) Let’s Get Married NOW ! So Me And Miss

Stephanie E. DOE Talk for Hours & Hours Of the Cell Phone &The Home Phone

Too. To Save Money She Call Me From Her Home Phone to A Pay Phone at

Tidyman’s # is 509-459-9822 and She Called Me at VA Hospital  509-326-9800

for Over (2)Two Hours on the Phone Stephanie Called Me from Her Home Phone#  
At Lot’s OF Different Phone ( # ) Etc. So After Talking Alots Time to Get to KNOW

HER BETTER ! She said (WE) Will Not Get Married Because She Lose Her $$

If Married  I Said O.K. to Her !  She Said Let’s Live Together! Next She Ask Me

About Having or Making Love To Her and with Her ! I Said I Need to Talk To Your

Doctor (1st) First O.K. Also She Said… Iam Not Playing Games This Time Like I

Did With Steve lefler WHO WILL NOT MARRY ME!  I Want To MOVE-IN With YOU

NOW !  But 1st I Want To MAKE OUT! With You.To make sure you are a Good

Kisser/Lover with Me. So Stephanie Said to call her At 8:00am to Go Out on the

Date!  I Call at 8:21am on Nov/ 02/ 2005  Stephanie Not Up Yet ! Call Back Later 2

or 3 call Later Stephanie Called at 11:33am Said Come Pick me Up At NOON O.K.

I Knock at the Door & Said Hi Stephanie said I For got My Lip Stick to PUT*ON  Its

O.K.  I Will KISS IT OFF Any Way! I Ask About The Bed So I Can tape measures It

So I Can Move Her Bedroom set to my Home So I Looked at the BED / Karaoke

Machine / She Show Me her CLOTHES & FURNITURE & COUCH ONLY & She

Handed ME A Wedding Ring Catalog & So off on the Date to Oldman Lake, Wa.

To Make Out+Kiss A Little (Mostly Heavy Petting) ! Before I Go to Work at 2:30pm

in Downtown / WEST Services Stephanie Said  I Want You to Hold Me / Kiss Me / 

I Said O.K. So After Becoming Romantically Involved With Each Other ! !

Miss Stephanie DOE Said ( I Will LOVE YOU FOREVER RANDLES ! ! )

WE Talk About Meeting My Mother for Lunch On Sunday ! My Day Off from Work

&To Go Look at Ring’s for Stephanie! So After are Date & I bring Miss Stephanie

DOE Home at 1:30pm on Nov / 02 / 2005  Stephanie Said Take me Home with

You Now / Your Home! Also Stephanie Mother Call at 12:43pm from #208-935-6724

Ask Stephanie How are Thing going /Iam Watching A Movies ! I Called Stephanie

at 1:35pm &I Called Pizzahut at 1:51pm So Cherlotte DOE Said Iam at Her Home

4:00pm Iam at Work 2:32pm So Me & Miss Stephanie Talk for Hours and Hours

 Again up to Nov / 08 / 2005 about 1:19pm  Last Call From Her to Voice Mail !

Stephanie Said (CALL ME BACK ASAP! & HELP ME NOW) Total Calls From

Miss DOE Stephanie Is ( 48 ) Calls in 8 Day I Randles Called  Her 13 Times

So Stephanie Tell Me That Her Mother Take Her ( Cell Phone Away from Her )

Stephanie Tell Me On the Phone Call’s to Me ( Randles ) That Her Mother ( Drugs

Her Before Going to meeting with Doctors & Meeting ) SO STEPHANIE LOOK's

SICK TO THE PUBLIC & Stephanie Tell Me Her (Mother Used Her Money for 3 Cell

Phone Number) And make her pay for It. & Mother Check all Her Mail 1st First So

Miss Stephanie DOE  did not get ( No Valentines Day Card’s ) She Also Told

Me/ Mother Charlotte DOE Got from Her $20,000 Dollars Pay Back Later ?

So Bye Washington State Law as a Mandatory Reporter / NAR Nursing Assistant

Registered / State Lic. # NA00181252 ALSO I Work As A Home/ Individual SSPS

Provider State of Wa.  # 313913 + Also RCW 74.34.053 Say! Failure to Report Is

(Guilty By Law)  I Walk In-person APS/DSHS & Filed A report Bye Wa. LAW

On 11/04/05 & 11/09/05 I Got to see Stephanie again On 2/6/2006 Miss Stephanie

DOE Said  ( TO ME ) How Come You Did Not Help Me ( Randles ) As You Said

You Would ? ? To Help Me !  I Said I Did Help You! Bye Law. I Kiss Stephanie/

She Said do You Have More Candy Yes & I talk Too Her About 20 mins/ She Said

That Steve Lefler Is Coming Up 4:30pm I Will Call You After Steve leaves to night!

So I Weigh for Stephanie To Call Me!/ NO Call So I Go Sheriff And File A Report

Bye Law to Deputy Richard Badicke Desk ! Deputy R. Badicke/ Gave Me A Card

Said: Info. Report Only ! I Filed the Report On Feb/ 13/2006 At Sheriff dept. Front

Desk After the Report I Go Back To  APS/ DSHS  Bye Law to Files a New Report

Bye Law (RCW 74.34.035) Read It Youself Please! Deputy Richard Badicke Said I

Will HELP You & Stephanie ! So I Came Back (3)More Times With More Info. For

Deputy R. Badicke / Help Me & Stephanie / He Made Copy of Papers Work. Like

My Cell Phone records / Car & Truck Titles / Mail ETC ! The Case Is Now Turned

Over To Deputy Cindy North Jones ! Deputy Jones Said to Me Randles !  To Help

You I Need to Run Tape Recorder of this Meeting / Is It O.K. / I Said Yes Go Ahead
 
Iam A Nursing Assistant Registered / Mandatory Reporter O.K. She Did Not Help

Me at All. per Wa. State Law But Said ( YOU ARE UNDER ARREST ) STALKING DV

& YOU CAN EXPLAIN MY or YOUR DEFENSE TO AN ATTORNEY + BOOKED In To

JAIL For STALKING DV  Said Because I Filed & Appealed About the Judge’s

Ruling! In Court ! Case # 686281-DV in District Court On March 30/2006 Appealed

To Superior Court Case # 06-2-01414-1 Filed 3/30/06 As Per My AFFIDAVIT of

PROBABLE CAUSE Dated 3/30/06 Also Deputy Richard Badicke Told ? ( Paper

Work Enclosed! ) On The Date Feb. 17 2006 A FAX from Debble Becerra DSHS

That Sheriff’s Dept. Has Filed A Stalking Charge Against  Mr. Randles Tompkins

From A letter To Adena / Dept. of  Health   02/17/06 This is Not A True!/ NO

STALKING CHARGE ARE FILED !  I Randles Tompkins Attempted to File /Internal

Investigation! In March of 2006  See Report 3 / 13 / 2006 page (1) Copy Enclosed !

I Did File (2) Two more Report’s  One inperson 4/16/06 & One by Certified U.S.

MAIL  July / 10 / 2006 You Can Check Files! Deputy Richard Badicke.. Taken My

Report in the 1st Place by Law / Next drive to My Home Service Me Paper’s &

Next He Go To Court To Testify Against Me At Trial.   Case # 686281-DV !

YES I THINK THIS IS IMPROPER OF HIM ! ( Deputy Badicke ) + IN COURT !

NEXT Attorney Aaron Naccarato at the Law Offices of Layman, Layman, &

Robinson, PLLP 601 S. Division St. Spokane, Wash. 99202-1335 USA  //    Ph. #

509-455-8883 FILES A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE/ ON Feb / 15 / 2006 FOR THE CITY

OF SPOKANE, WA. The Plaintiff  V/s Re: Prof. Randles Psychedelic Tompkins /

The DEFENDANT. For Case #  686281-DV !  In District Court Spokane, Wa. USA !

 Now Iam In the Court Room With Judge Virginia RockWood Case #  686281-DV 

Feb, 28-2006 at 10:01 a.m. (Open Court !) Mr. Naccarato, ?  Do you know whether

or not there have been Any Reports to Law Enforcement or Referrals regarding

ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES in this case AGAINST Mr.Tompkins? + Mr. Naccarato +

YES , Your Honor, I DO # 06-45600 report! THIS IS NOT TRUE STATEMENT /

CRIMINAL CHARGES? The Statement or report! Made by Deputy Cindy North

Jones ! Are Not True at All.  I Talked To Ms. Jones for about 20 mins. Before She

Arrested Me for Stalking DV & Booked into JAIL ! FROM A MEMOANDUM from 

Dept. of Health March 28/ 2006 On (03/28/2006) She Made A Statement to Dwight

Correll DOH SHE INFORMED (Dwight Correll) That She BELIEVES That There is

Enough to Charge the Respondent ( Randles ) With A MISDEMEANOR STALKING

CHARGES with Regard to his Relationship to Miss Stephanie DOE ! (HOW CAN

THIS BE) She Going to Charges Me with ? From Deputy Jones REPORT She Did

Not talk to Stephanie DOE at All ! SHE SAID That I 1st made Contacted on April

05-2006 with Charlotte DOE So on 3/28/06 Before Talking to Anyone I may

be Arrested For W/Out Talking to the Mother 1ston 4/5/2006 1st Place I Did Not

Phone Stephanie on 02/02/06 Look at The Cell Phone Record’s Also I Did Not Call

Stephanie in the Hospital in Feb/2006 at all Also From the Hospital Report ! t11 /

19 / 2006 TO 11 / 29 / 2006 She Home! at Oldman Lake, Wa. 99025 USA

THE STATEMENT:   Made by Deputy Cindy North Jones How Do You Know

Stephanie DOE is in FEAR in the 1st Place… If You Did Not Talk to Her At All.!

In the 1st Place! From the Paper work I ( Enclosed ) Dated 11/10/2005 p.9/21

Report from  SUE GRINER  APS ? DSHS at 8:30 a.m. SPK. Stephanie DOE &

Family in Interview Room at ( APS ) Yes Stephanie LOOKS SLEEPY & HER EYES

ARE GLASSY. & SHE SPEAKS SLOWLY/ SHE HESITATES Before Answered A ? ?

QUESTION!  ( NOTE: From Randles ) ( Stephanie TOLD Me Randles That HER

MOTHER  DRUGS HER Before Going Out to Meeting or to SEE DOCTORS Inperson!

To Keep Her!) at this Interview In 11/10/05  Stephanie Did Not Say Anything !

About A GUN AT ALL. All Stephanie Said (I Like Older Man) ( She Said Iam In

LOVE with the Reporter (RANDLES) & She Said ( Her Mother Does Like HIM +

Randles ) Also Stephanie Said ( I Think My Mother is Too CONTROLLING ) that

All ! Also See Paper Work From Dwight Correll Dated March 9/06 MEMORANDUM 

That (Charlotte DOE) SAID I HAVE NEVER SEEN or SPOKEN or TALKED to

the Respondent ( RANDLES P. Tompkins ) Out Side Of the Courtroom on the Day

of the hearing ONLY! Dwight Correll TOLD THIS TO ( Deputy Cindy North Jones )

At the Meeting With HER ! SO HOW CAN  Ms. C. DOE SAY IN THE COURT

ROOM THAT ( Randles HAS A GUN ) Or Ms. DOE Said Iam A Predator of

Vulnerable Adults! But(3)Times in Court Files said I Have Not Talked or Spoken 2

Stephanie Transcription of Her Call’s ( HELP ) are Enclosed ! 11/04/ 2005 Randles

you are the best friend that I Have ever know! 11/05/05 I call to say Hi! &tell you I

sure Love you & miss you!  I Could live with you someday & be your wife & your

Forever! 11/08/05 I truly believe within my Heart that my MOM was the One that

put me in the hospital from all the Stress of not being Able to See you or be with

You! Please, Please, Remember that  I will always Love You and Care for You

with all my HEART! SO at the Time Iam ARRESTED  (Deputy Cindy North Jones)

I Had My PAPERWORK ON ME & I GAVE HER A COPY!  I had 24 Hours fitness Log

That Me & Debra Dilbert at Home The Thankgiving Weekend Together at the

GYM / Dinner Etc. I also Had My Cell Phone Record’s with Me (25) pages To Let

Deputy See I Did not Make Any Call As Per Ms. DOE # Statement Dated

Feb/27/2006 from the Trial Copy (Enclosed) And My Master Tape From Stephanie

ASKING FOR HELP ! Also Had A (35) Pages Statement from Court Dated 3/30/2006

All The Paper Work A Gave to the Deputy as Evidence for Me! So Bye Washington

State Law as a Mandatory Reporter / NAR Nursing Assistant Registered / State Lic.

# NA00181252 ALSO As A Home/ Individual SSPS Provider State of Wa.  # 313913

+ Deputy to Help ME BY Law (RCW 74.34.035) Read It Youself! SO BYE LAW With

ALL The EVIDENCE I TURNED OVER To The SPOKANE SHERIFF DEPT.  KNOW

ONE HELP OR CALLED MISS STEPHANIE E. DOE AT ALL or PLAYED THE TAPE

AT ALL KNOW ONE CARE AT ALL The LAW!  According to NCIC Mr Tompkins Has

No Felony / or missamameanors Convictions! Also ( Enclosed are My Tickets ) All

(3) Of Them CR-52967 + I Got the 1st Copy from the Jail the Day I Got Out 5pm

4/18/06 The Next Copy is From the Dept. of Health it said Stalking DV  It There A #

On the Bottom # 00063 this is Dept. of health # # NOW the Ticket in the Court File

Dated Apr/18/2006 I Got # Copy the Next day or 2 / (Someone Add Writing to the

Ticket) Its in (2)+Different Handed Writing from (2) Different Deputy!

                THIS NOT THE TICKET AT MY ( HEARING IN COURT ! )

 Also Steve Lefler TOLD Ms. DOE  I Had A GUN  NOT Stephanie DOE …

Steve Lefler Did Not Know I SOLD The GUN IN Nov. 01/1988 & Printed it in the

Spokesman-Review ! ALSO Look at MEMORANDUM Dated 4/17/2006 Stephanie is

In Hospital 2nd time 11/19 to 11/29/2005 During That Visit The Family Finally

Convinced ( Stephanie by FEAR ) that Randles Did Not Have Her Best Interests At

Heart ! Page # 00067 DOH
 

                SO YES I THINK MISS STEPHANIE E. DOE IS IN FEAR !

                MS. DOE IS IN FEAR! FROM LIES & FALSE REPORTS

              FROM (APS) & (SHERIFF DEPT) & (DSHS) & (Her MOTHER)

              SHE IS NOT IN (FEAR OF ME) + (RANDLES) + ( BECAUSE! )

               THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO HER ON FEB / 06 / 2006 ! !

               SHE SAID ! +( I WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU FOREVER ! !)

               & From the LAST CALL TO ME (RANDLES)&(FOR HELP)


SEE the Transcriber’s Note: Dated -2/27/2006 with Court Files Of the Phone Call’s

to Me (Randles) Case #686281-DV  2/28/06 THE FEMALE VOICE on the Recording

SOUNDED WARM, CARING and LOVING Based upon Tone of Voice, Intonation

And Vocabulary Towards  Randles P. Tompkins to Whom The Phone Calls are

Directed. (Signed: Marta C. Reyes) Vice Pres. PERCIBA incorporated  502 East 3rd

ave. Spokane, Wa. 99202 Miss Stephanie E. DOE Called Me Over (48) Times in

Ten Days So As of 11/06/2005  Charlotte DOE Said to me (Randles) From

Stephanie Room at the Hospital On the Cell Phone With Stephanie Talking Too

Me. & Charlotte DOE ASKING ? Of Me ( Randles) In the Back Ground with

Steve Lefler ALSO Ms. DOE  Ask me the Name of my Bank ?  ( WSECU ) &

You are Working at ?  ( WEST SERVICES )  Ms. DOE + Ask ? Steve said Your

old name is Randall C. Nutter ? ( YES ) Charlotte DOE Said  O.K. you Can

Date Stephanie  But You are To OLD to Come to the House / You Call Me for Date!

& I Will Bring Stephanie DOE to the Spokane Valley MALL For You to PICK-

HER-UP-at the Mall +I SAID O.K. with Me! But After Stephanie GOT HOME(Mother

Got Her Cell Phone) 11/08/05 1:19pm  Last Call /VM is Call me back ASPS Randles

So Now After All This SEE THE PAPER WORK I (Enclosed)  Dated 11/10/05 p.9/21

Report from SUE GRINER APS/DSHS ! at 8:30 a.m. Spokane, Wa. USA Stephanie

DOE & Family in Interview Room at (APS) from SUE GRINER I THINK THAT

Stephanie LOOKS SLEEPY & HER EYES ARE GLASSY. & SHE SPEAKS SLOWLY /

SHE HESITATES Before Answered QUESTION! At this Interview Stephanie Did Not

Say Anything About A GUN AT ALL. All Stephanie Said (I Like Older Man) ( She

Said Iam In LOVE with the Reporter (RANDLES) & She Said ( Her Mother Does

Like HIM + Randles ) Also Stephanie DOE Said ( I Think My Mother is Too

CONTROLLING ) that All ! So Because I Files A Report with APS / DSHS Bye Wa.

LAW ! Charlotte DOE Is NOW VERY MAD I THINK AT ME! So now! Ms. Charlotte

DOE the Mother of Stephanie  Objected  To me (Randles) the Complainant

Having A Relationship with her Daughter & Now attempted to Keep Complainant

from Seeing Or Having Contact with Miss DOE ! all of the Complainant’s

Contacts & Date’s & Cell Phone Call’s & Dinner’s & Kissing ! Etc. With Miss DOE

Were of A Friendly or Romantic Nature The Complainant Did Not at Anytime !

Make Any Threats Too Or Toward Miss Stephanie DOE or Engage IN Any

Conduct or Any Unlawful Conduct That I Tried Too or That I Intended To Frighten,

Intimidate or Harass Miss S. DOE in Any Way At ALL NOW or In The Furture Try to

Harm Miss S. DOE at all! all of the Contacts Between Me (Randles Tompkins) the

Complainant and Miss Stephanie E. DOE  Are & Were CONSENSUAL IN NATURE !

Look At the Paper Work (Enclosed) & Hear the Tape of + Stephanie DOE ( You

can hear the tape its in the Sheriff dept. Files ) ! ! Miss S. DOE Did Not Tell Me

Randles Complainant at Anytime That SHE Did Not Want To Have Contact With

(ME) Randles or That She Felt That She was Being Harassed in any Manner.

SHE DID SAY TO ME (Randles) Please DO NOT take me to my Mother's Home!

I WANT TO STAY WITH (YOU FOREVER I LOVE YOU ! ) NEVERTHELESS ! Ms.

Charlotte DOE  Petition The  COURT’s For A Temporary Order for Protection

Against Complainant In February 2006 At the Same Time Knowing Her Report’s &

Statements with the Help OF HER Attorney Aaron Naccarato Are All FALSE

STATEMENT’s & PERJURYED REPORTS! So (Randles) the Complainant Was

Served with a Copy of the Temporary Order of Protection on Feb./19/2006 For

Case # ! 686281-DV with a Notice of Appearance To Be By ( Attorney Aaron m.

Naccarato ) Dated 02/15/2006 the Case in District Court As CITY of SPOKANE WA.

Vs, Re: Randles P. Tompkins !  & Paperwork for Stephanie E. DOE Vs, : Randles

P. Tompkins !  I Did Not Know for Sure about This at the Time Iam Thinking This

Court Case Is About ME Trying To Help Miss Stephanie DOE At The SHERIFF

DESK SAYING HELP ME ! & STEPHANIE !! As per Deputy Richard Badicke Saying

Iam Help you as Asked  I Did Not Know That Deputy Richard Badicke is Not Help

Me! Because I Filed  1st Report By Wa. State Law RCW (74.34.035) In the First

Place To Report That Ms. Charlotte DOE  IS Suspected Of Abuse and

Financial Exploitation of Miss Stephanie DOE By Her Mother Ms. Charlotte

DOE As Per the Statement Made to me (Randles) As a Mandatory Reporter

NA00181252 / Under Wa. State Law in the First /To Filed to Report for Help! So ON

or ABOUT  04/05/06 Spokane County Sheriff’s Deputy Cindy North Jones contacted

Ms. C. DOE in Reference to the Complaint. (Randles)! Ms. C. DOE TOLD

Deputy Jones That She is the Guardian of Stephanie DOE And the That Mr.

Randles P. Tompkins (Complainant) Had Been Contacting Ms. S. DOE Against Ms.

Charlotte DOE WISHES! So On 04/12/2006 Ms. C. DOE Gave Deputy Jones

Several “Get Well” CARD’s And A Valentines Day Card That Mr. Tompkins Had

Given to Ms. S. DOE Prior to Being Served with the Order of Protection! SO ON

02/19/06 After Valentines Day / Ms. S. DOE Got Cards 02/06/06 So Deputy Richard

Badicke Told (Randles)That Spokane, Wa. U.S.A.

County Sheriff’s Deputy Cindy North Jones + IS NOW HELPING YOU / STEPHANIE

GO TALK TO HER/ I WILL CALL FOR YOU & TELL YOU ARE COMING TO SEE HER !

ITS IN ROOM ( 220 ) AT NORTH 901 MONROE ST. Next Door ! Deputy Jones Will

Look At (YOUR PAPER WORK & TAPES) So its now about (1:58pm) On 04/17/ 2006 

Come In Mr. Tompkins Have A Seat Over By My Desk / O.K. Its Me & Her & A Male

Deputy in the Room. I Need To Tape Your Statement is it O.K. Yes You Can Tape

MEETING TO HELP ME & STEPHANIE So WE Talked for About 20 mins. Or So I

Gave Her My Paper Work./ She Ask Me ? / About it ? / I Said  I Have a Statement!

From DISTRICT COURT CASE # 686281-DV Feb/27/06  FROM COURT Signed by Ms.

C. DOE / I Said All the Statement are FALSE Or PERJURY REPORT’s &ALL

STATEMENT ARE FALSE & I TOLD Deputy Jones about 24 Hours GYM & My Calling

Cell Phone Record’s & I DID NOT GO TO THE HOSPITAL On 11/19/2005 IN the 1st 

Place & Told Her About the Appealed The Case /Superior Court Case # 06-2-01414-

1 for PERJURY! Also I Discuss the Situation Deputy Jones At  2:24pm Can You

Sign This Card For Me / I Said Yes / She Its Your Right’s Card O.K. Randles You

are Being Placed Under (ARREST)  & IAM CHARGEING YOU WITH STALKING DV /

Put your hands To Your Back / & NOW the MALE DEPUTY COME OVER!

THE LAST THING I SAID TO DEPUTY JONES IS DO NOT FORGET TO TURN OFF

THE TAPE ON YOUR DESK OK.

Deputy Cindy North Jones & the Male Deputy Walked Me To JAIL at About 

2:30pm to BOOKING at about 2:40pm Stand!  I ASK HOW COME IAM ARRESTED

DEPUTY JONES Said You Are Under A ARREST for Filing the APPEAL in COURT

You Are Trying To See Stephanie By Filing this APPEAL O.K. Appealed To

Superior Court Case # 06-2-01414-1 Filed 3/30/06 As Per My AFFIDAVIT of

PROBABLE CAUSE Dated 3/30/06 So Deputy Jones Placed Complainant Under

(ARREST)  and( CHARGED HIM WITH STALKING DV IN VIOLATION OF ) RCW        

   9A.46.110.  & Mr. Randles P. Tompkins PRO-SE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY &

HELD In the Spokane, County JAIL UNTIL RELEASED ON APRIL 18/2006 At About

5pm.! The Complainant Had Previously Been Offered Employment ! With Aacres

Allvest in Spokane, Wa. At $1,026 a week to Start & Was to Begin Work on the

Morning of 04/18/2006 at 8:30am  But Mr. Randles P. Tompkins (  I WAS UNABLE

To APPEAR) For Work at the Scheduled Time DUE TO BEING IN JAIL ! & DUE TO

HIS INCARCERATION, His Employment With New Job at AacresAllvest Was

TERMINATED Because of Arrested Prior to Placing Complainant (Mr.Tompkins)

Under ARREST For STALKING-DV, Deputy Cindy North Jones Did Not Talk Too or

Contact or Attempt To Contact The Alleged Victim Ms Stephanie DOE ! At All & 

Deputy Richard Badicke in Court Case #686281-DV on Feb,28-2006  NO ONE

TALKED TO Ms. Stephanie DOE & Deputy did you Interviewed Stephanie NO

I DID NOT / Did You Hear Those Tapes/ Deputy NO Did NOT Review the Tapes/I

Put the Tapes as Property of Evidence OK! So At the Time of the ARREST! Deputy

Jones Had No Reliable or Credible Information that Complainant (Mr.Tompkins)

had Threatened Ms. Stephanie DOE or Any Other Person At All. In Fact from

the Tapes Reports (Enclosed) on Mr. Tompkins ! She/ Miss Stephanie DOE Ask

Mr.Tompkins Too Marry Her or That Ms. DOE Had Been Placed in Fear By

Mr.Tompkins Or Intended To Injure Her or Injure Another Person or Injure Her

Property or property of another Person. At the time of the Arrest. Deputy Jones

Had No Credible or Reliable Information that Mr. Randles Tompkins Intended to

Frighten, Intimdate or Harass Ms. S. DOE Based Upon Information Known to

Deputy Cindy N. Jones, No Reasonable Police Officer Would Have Believed that

Probable Cause Existed to ARREST Complainant for Stalking DV or For Any

OTHER CRIME. Charges Droped Against Mr. Randles P. Tompkins (Complainant)

Were Later DISMISSED!  As A Result of the Conduct of the Officers, Employees,

Agents And/or Representatives of Spokane County and The  Spokane County

Sheriff’s Department, the Claimant  ( Mr. Randles Psychedelic Tompkins ) Was

DEPRIVED OF HIS Constitutional RIGHT To Be FREE from UNLAWFUL ARREST &

INCARCERATION ! AS THE RESULT of being placed Under ARREST & CHARGED

With The CRIME OF STALKING DV, / Claimant Suffered Mental & Embarrassment

And Humiliation, and the Loss of Personal LIBERTY ! The Claimant Mr. Randles P 

TOMPKINS ALSO Suffered Lost of Income as the Result of Being Denied WORK

& Employment Due to his ARREST & INCARCERATION !! All of Which Was The

Direct And Proximate Result of the UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF SAID OFFICERS /

EMPLOYEES, AND / OR AGENTS OF THE Spokane County sheriff’s Dept. ! U.S.A.

THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE HEARING WAS/ IS CONDUCTED FAILED TO

MEET THE MINIMUM AT ALL STANDARDS FOR DUE PROCESS AT ALL. & THAT

MY@ APPEAL IS NEITHER FRIVOLOUS NOR IS IT  BROUGHT IN BAD FAITH

REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AN UNDER WHICH A COURT OR ANY COURTs

BAD JUDGE WHO MAKE ( BAD RULING WITH OUT ANY EVIDENCE ) AT ALL. HOW

DV ORDER ARE ISSUE / LIKE CANDY ?  IF ONLY ONE (1) HONORABLE  JUDGE  IN

THIS  STATE WILL LET ME CALL A WITNESS AT THE HEARING OR THE TRIAL OR

THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESS !  IF ONLY ONE ( 1 ) HONORABLE  JUDGE  IN

THIS STATE WILL STAND UP & THIS CASE AND FOLLOW THE LAW & CAN MAKE

A FAIR RULING IN THIS CASE AFTER 2 ½ YEARS NOW IN COURT & STOP

BLOCKING (ME) NOW! WILL LET ME CALL A WITNESS AT THE HEARING OR

THE TRIAL OR THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESS ! SO IAM ON A DATE WITH

LET'S SAY IAM WITH MISS STEPHANIE DOE AND SHE GRAB'S ME IN THE CAR 

THIS IS SEXUAL ASSAULT ON ME ! AT Oldman Lake, Wa. ON NOV 02-2005  THE 

SHERIFF dept. SAID SO WHAT (SHE ASK ME TO MARRY HER) & I SAID YES + YES

SO STEPHANIE DOE  IS CHARGED WITH  RAPE-ING ME AS PER RCW/26.50.030

SIGNING NOT REQUIRED AT / ALL SO THIS IS A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE

COURT TO ! ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS FOR ALL THE 5 JUDGE TO SEE &

ANSWER FOR MY ( DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ?) WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SIGN ?

AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS ? UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY  IF IT’s ALL HEARSAY ?

SO STEPHANIE DID NOT RAPE ME ? BUT UNDER WA. LAWS SHE DID RAPE ME ? 

YES + IT’s ALL ( HEARSAY RULE ) EVIDENCE LAW AND PRACTICE   RULE # 602.2  

& 602.3 ? EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM PERSONALLY OBSERVED ? O.K. JANE DOE 

IS GOING TO SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS  UNDER & DECLARE UNDER

PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON STATE U.S.A. ! !

SO JANE DOE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING AT ALL… BUT YOU DO NOT GET TO

CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT ALL.? ALSO YOU DO NOT GET TO CROSS-EXAMINE

JOHN DOE AT ALL. BECAUSE OF RCW 74.34.021 IS THE LAW! HE IS A ( SO

CALLED ) A VULNERABLE ADULT / FALSE SO UNDER RAP 2.3 (d)+(3) THIS IS AN

ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE AN

APPELLATE COURT / COURT OF APPEALS DIV+III  AS PER District Court JUDGE /

COMMISSIONER BRADLEY C.CHINN STATEMENT IS NOT MADE BY ANY EVIDENCE

AT ALL NOT WITH ANYONE/ NO CALL/ NO /ANY EVIDENCED ! THAT THIS MEET

THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH FEAR! SO AFTER THE DEATH OF MISS STEPHANIE

E. DOE ? BY HER MOTHER HAND  or IS KILLED BY CHARLOTTE AFTER SHE ASK

ME FOR HELP (IN THE 1ST PLACE) will THE COURT SAY TO ME I’AM SORRY Mr.

RANDLES PSYCHEDELIC TOMPKINS / PRO-SE ? CLAIM # VL86704  IS A FALSE

STATEMENT & PERJURY CHARLOTTE MADE A REPORT FOR OCT. 31/2005  THAT

MISS STEPHANIE E. DOE  IS SEXUALLY ASSAULT & OR ASSAULT BY (RANDLES) 

BUT IN HER STATEMENT TO THE COURT IN CASE # 686281DV  FEB.28.2006

DISTRICT COURT THAT ON  OCT.31.2005  STEPHANIE DOE  IS WITH STEVE

LEFLER ALL DAY WITH HIM ! AT NORTH 2??? WALL ST. SPOKANE, WA. 99205  

PH. # 208-928-5753 YOU CAN ASK JOHN / STEVE LEFLER THIS QUESTION ? ? ?

CHARLOTTE WHO IS STEPHANIE E. DOE  ( MOTHER ) ASK MAN A DATE HER

( STEPHANIE ) SHE TRY TO GET YOU (2) SALE YOUR HOME IF YOU WANT TO GET

TOO MARRIED STEPHANIE E. DOE IT MUST BE 2,000 SQ.FT IF NOT SHE STOP

THE MARRAGE TO HER  STEPHANIE NOW (SHE IS ASSAULT BY WHO ?) NO

POLICE REPORT ARE FILED AT ALL ! !  MISS  STEPHANIE E. DOE  IS  ASSAULT

BY (RANDLES)  BUT FILED NO  STATEMENT TO ANYONE ….BUT FILED A CLAIM

NOW 2 ½ YEARS LATER WITH DEPT. OF LABOR.. HOW COME SO LATE!

That I ( Aaron Naccarato )  DID NOT SIGNED Any Statement That I Did Have

Personal Knowledge ! THIS IS PERJURYED see page (2) line 1/21of APPELLEEs

REPLY to APPELLANTs RESPONSE  of Aaron Naccarato  + DATED NOV / 13 /

2007Case #07-2-04098-1 Appealed From District Court #787861DV II. Argument Part

 A. &B. I (Aaron Did A INVESTIGATION) ! & This Is the Only Information Contained

Within the Petition for Protection That I Signed With My Wa. State Bar Number !

SO Know ONE SIGNED ANYTHING by the (PETITIONER) !

Not Signed by Miss  Stephanie E. DOE & or Not Signed by Charlotte DOE at all.


                     (( YES THIS IS GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC ))

SO as Per RULE 602.2 Requirement of Personal Knowledge ! The Witness ( Mr. Aaron ) Must TESTIFY on the basis of facts or events that the WITNESS Has PERSONALLY OBSERVED So At The Time I Started Taking to Miss Stephanie E. DOE Back In year 2001/Attorney Naccarato  Is Still In Law School?                 See Rule 602.3 Personally Knowledge Relationship to Hearsay!
 
I Do HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date a True and Correct copy of the foregoing MOTION For Discretionary Review with Oral Argument / New Evidence is a True Statement ! RAP 9.11 & ALSO RAP 2.3 (d) (3) YES THIS IS IN (PUBLIC) For the foregoing reasons, the court should reverse the Lower Court Ruling of the ( 2 Year No Contact Order )  For the foregoing reasons, motion and award terms to Mr. Prof. Randles Psychehdelic Tompkins for costs and expenses & Etc. incurred in responding to the motion & Court Hearing ! ! NO MORE GAME PLAYING + WITH THE COURT’s of WA. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE+NOT HEARSAY / EVIDENCE! 
For the foregoing reasons, the court should reverse the Lower Court Ruling of the ( 2 Year No Contact Order )    For the foregoing reasons, motion and award terms to Mr. Randles P. Tompkins for costs and expenses & Etc. incurred in responding to the motion & Court Hearing!  I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing matter was hand delivered Att. Mr. Aaron Naccarato 

            CERTIFICATE of SERVICE That I myself Delivered In person

               Typed & Signed by & Dated This 04th Day of AUG / 2008

          Prof. Randles Psychedelic Tompkins / This Is A TRUE REPORT !

============================================================

This is Randles P. Tompkins, March 14, 2006 I was told by the Spokane Police Dept. to go ahead and put this together, as the time-line to prove my whereabouts during the time this case was filed against me by Stephanie E. DOE’s parents, with Charlotte DOE.  Thank you. This Is Filed With Deputy CINDY NORTH JONES 4-17-2006 SHERIFF'S !

THIS IS MY FIRST TIME I TOLD MY STORY TO THE SHERIFF DEPT. IN WRITING ! !  

 I met Stephanie E. DOE at a dance across from Shadle at a Catholic church, probably two to three years ago.  Steve Lefler was there and I was there for a little bit of time.  Steve was dancing with her; I did not dance with Stephanie.  I had seen her and I went home after about an hour because it was kind of boring.  That was the first time that I had seen Stephanie E. DOE.  I had called her a few times or talked to her at Steve’s house off and on during the year when he was over there visiting with her, I would talk to her on the phone.  Steve Lefler’s telephone number is 928-5753.  Him and Stephanie went out for probably a year or so.  He bought Stephanie a diamond ring that he said cost around $2000 dollars or a little bit less.  That he went to marriage counseling classes with her…Mother paid for that for over three months.  They set a couple of different wedding dates which never actually took place – they kept postponing it.  I assumed because of Stephanie working out at the Freedom of Speech Candy Sales state line Id. during the summer time and going to singles’ functions at the churches and different things with Steve and places that we go for groups that Stephanie was available.  I did not know she was a DV client until after DSHS told me when I filed my report on 11-4-2005.  The report number that they gave me for the filing was 69959 and the date that I filed it was 11-4-05 and that was DSHS and it was the Adult Protective Services (APS) part, asking for me to help Stephanie out after some of the stuff that she had told me. I assumed that Stephanie could be married for the fact that she had actually moved in with Steve Lefler for over a week.  She moved in on a Monday.  She cleaned the house, did a lot of stuff with Steve.  I had talked to Stephanie at the house, that can be verified.  Dave Germaine and me.  Dave Germaine’s phone number is 324-0295.  We were going out to the buffet.  And she asked Dave if she could come along.  To pick her up.  She told me that Steve was not treating her very well.  The house was cold, she could see her breath and she asked me to come over and cuddle.  I actually did come over to the house on a Wednesday I think it was, and I actually spent some time with her, but her Mother was coming to take her to Bingo. So I had left, but I had talked to Stephanie four times at the time that she had moved in with Steve.  I asked her to call me if she decided she did not want to stay with Steve because he would not turn on the heat and the house was cold.  He turned on the heat only so that she could, he could get up and go to work and then he would shut it off.  Stephanie did call me one time on that date and it can be verified by cell phone records that she called me.  I do not have that bill with me at this time.  Her mother brought her back home.  I went out to the house.  I have left notes on the door for Stephanie two or three times over the last two years.  I have mailed Valentine’s Day cards for the last two years.  And different cards off and on just to be nice. Stephanie told me that she has never received any mail from me at the house.  So I sent a letter from the post offices, certified that Stephanie would have to receive.  She could be the only person to sign for it.  The dates that they tried delivery was 11-23, 11-5-05, 11-18-05, 11-21-05 the Post Office, they would not let her receive any mail.  The postal authorities told me that this is considered postal fraud, she misdirected mail, turned property away that does not belong to her. I have four counts of postal misconduct against Charlotte J. Weber or they say her name is now called Charlotte DOE.  

 At the time that Steve was dating Stephanie the mother asked Steve to sell his real estate, they were supposed to sell the real estate so they could take Stephanie’s trust fund money that she was having coming in and they were going to put it together for a house together.  Steve did not want to sell his house, they tried to get him to rent the house out and move in with Stephanie they tried a lot of different things like that which now I find out is considered real estate fraud.  You are not allowed to.  Stephanie cannot be married.  Stephanie is protected and why would the mother have him go to marriage counseling classes and do stuff against the real estate board.  I have also contacted the real estate board and am trying to see what I can do there because it is against the law for her to try to take the real estate.  They asked me, Randles P. Tompkins if I would sell my trailer and I told Stephanie that I would sell the trailer, at the time not knowing that she could not be living with anybody, that way we could move in together and I was part of the arrangement I set-up that I would not take out a $100.000 life insurance policy on my life because I felt that if somebody tried to kill me or if I accidentally died by food poisoning that I could be killed and then Stephanie would get a whole pile of money.  But I did agree that I could put her on my medical insurance so I started doing some stuff to get back into certified nursing assistant because Stephanie needed more medical care so I had talked to some places and I actually got into a nursing home and I went back to work as a NAC, right now I am a NAR Registered and I am waiting to take the test for the certification. That way I could actually be Stephanie’s caregiver and help her.  My State IP # is 313913, that was what I was told by the State and I was also told that if I had any suspicions of anything that would happen that I am a mandatory reporter, that I am supposed to report anything that somebody says that they have been abused. I have a DSHS pamphlet # 22-810 (X) revised 7-05.  It says “Mandatory Reporter – I am required to..what happens after I report a “Virulent Adult is Interviewed in Private.” DSHS told me after I called about the report that they did not get to talk to Stephanie in private. The mother would not let it. The mother was on the telephone and they had her there at the same time, could not talk to her. Stephanie said everything was fine, which was not true. I was also told if you report in good faith, you have immunity from liability. I went down to the police department and filed another report, not too awfully long, later in February. I think it was Feb. 13,  2006. I later found out that they had not done the thing I was sent a paperwork from the WA State District Court and the number is 06 – 8628100 and since the report number that I originally filed was 060045600 and the other number on the document here is 686281 and is says here on Domestic Violence DV. The officer that I actually filed the report with later came out to my house and served me with the paperwork and said that I had to appear in court, which I thought was kind of surprising. And then when I showed up in court he actually testified against me, saying that he thought that I was a danger to Stephanie, I knew he had a copy of the tape that I gave him where they had threatened my life. I felt people said that they were, you know, if I didn’t live off Stephanie that they were going to come pay me a visit. And he said that they didn’t even bother to listen to the tape or do any investigation at all.  So, after two weeks going by, no investigation at all on my complaint that somebody had actually harassed me,  I was in court two or three weeks after the report was filed, that I had to be back in court on the wrong side, which I thought was very suspicious. So, I have talked with Stephanie E. DOE off and on for short periods of time. Her phone number 926-2427, the mother monitors almost of her calls. 

 208-999-2706  Received 11/3/2005 at 9:11 PM

Randle… Stephanie’s Mom and Dad are very, very upset with you.You had better just stay away from Stephanie.  You’d better not call her.  You better stay away.  You better stay away from me too or else I will call the cops.  Do you hear me?  You’d better back off.

 208-999-2706  yesterday NOV. 2005 at 9:40 PM

Hey Randle, this is Stephanie’s boyfriend and I would appreciate it if you would get lost.If    I find out that you are calling her, talking to her or anything like that, me and you are going to have a serious words and we ‘re going to meeting up and I’m going to have her tell you the same.  Get lost Randles.

 Steve always complains that every time you talk with Stephanie the mother would listen to all of her calls. So, when she would call and I couldn’t talk with Stephanie I would hang the phone up, but I had talked to her off and on leaving notes and sending cards, which Stephanie did not receive. I then met Stephanie again over at Steve Lefler’s house. (I) We talked to Steve on the day before Halloween and me and Dave were going to go to lunch. I went over to Steve Lefler’s house on Halloween night 2005 and when I got there and knocked on the door around 2:10 they were laughing because Stephanie said that you had just interrupted me and Steve having sex. She was actually performing sex on him, she said  for over 20 minutes, to no avail because Steve has some problems, and she was laughing about it, she goes and then she told me that Steve had just broke up with her. We sat on the couch, from 2:10 pm to 2:50, probably 30-40 minutes and we talked and the TV was on too. Stephanie gave me her phone number, said that Steve had just broken up and would I like to go out with her, I said yes. She told Steve I just gave Randles my phone number, and he got very upset about it. We then drove over to Dave Germain’s  house in my van. I’m the one that actually picks Stephanie and Steve up and drove in my van over to Dave Germain’s. house. His phone number is 324-0295 and from there after we got Dave on board we drove up to Old Country Buffet where we had dinner together all four of us sitting there. The statement that Charlotte stated in court, Charlotte DOE that I had just met Stephanie at the restaurant in all of the paperwork about the Old Country Buffet is perjury. It is false. I did not give her a business card. Stephanie had my telephone number in her telephone and she called me. My phone records show the first call that I made to Stephanie was on Halloween night. The phone call was made on Oct. 31, at 8:51 PM. And I talked with her at Steve’s house for 2 minutes. She then called me back the next day and left me a message at 10:15 AM, from her home phone saying, “when you get this message, call me.” I want to hear from you it’s on the phone transcript an actual recording of this call. 

208-926-2427   11/01/2005   10:15 AM

Hi Randle, this is Steph, uhm give me a call. Uhm 999-2706 if you get this message, can’t wait to hear from you, talk to you later, bye.

208-999-2706  Received 11/01/2005  12:59 PM

Hey sweetheart, sure enjoyed talking to you today.  Can’t wait to hear from you again. Love you, bye.

 So, after I talked to Stephanie on Halloween night and she talked to me the next day. When we first went back from the restaurant to Steve’s house, Stephanie did not want to go in the house. She said Steve and her were kind of having some problems because she was mad that I got the phone number. When I called her later that evening, which was  the call on Oct. 31, she told me the next day when she was talking to me that Steve was very mean to her and very abusive……caused a lot of problems for her and she was very upset about it. So, we started talking. I actually talked to her on the phone, during that day on the 1st. There were a few calls where she called me on the phone record and I called her back. I then called her from the pay phone at Tidyman’s on the Spokane-Cheney RD., I was trying to save cell phone money. I called her from the number 459-9822. That should be on her cell phone records that I had called from the pay phone and talked to her. I also had talked to her from the VA Hospital and the phone number for the VA Hospital that I used was 509-326-9800. We talked for over 2 hours on the phone and 

 Stephanie’s cell phone went dead. She tried to use a couple of different home phone numbers to call back, so I am not sure which phone she used. We talked for over 2 hours about different things. She then told me that when she was dating Steve, because Steve would not sleep with her except a couple of times, that she made arrangements, I don’t know how she did……she went to her brothers house and the brother would take her to the neighbor……I’m not sure how much she got paid, but the arrangement was is that Stephanie would go to the neighbor’s house and pretend to play cards for 2 and 3 hours in the evening and Stephanie told me that ‘um they had sex with the neighbor and he was married. And the reason she told this in confidence, she asked me not to repeat it was she wanted to know if I would still care for her knowing that she had had an affair outside of marriage, which because we were reading bible verses together on the telephone and I said that what she did in the past, does not affect the future because there’s it’s nothing I can do about the past to change it. I’m sorry it happened, but I told her I think that we should contact DSHS because her brother should not be doing this kind of stuff…..She’s not supposed to be getting wedding rings, she’s not supposed to be going to marriage counseling classes, she’s not supposed to be moving in with somebody, if she is supposedly a guardian of her mother. So, I felt this was wrong. I assured her that that did not affect my position towards her. It was not her fault that she ‘um had this secret. But I thought it was very wrong and that was when she stayed at her brothers house, so I am trying to put a stop to that and that is when I went to DSHS on 11-04-05 and filed a report. She also said that her mother stole some of her trust fund money, it’s the money was going to be used when I sold my trailer, which I agreed to sell for $10,000, the mother was going to be the real estate broker on the deal cause she gets commission. We were then going to get a place closer to the hospital because she did not want to drive as far when she has her attacks. I said that would be fine but I insisted that the house stay in Stephanie’s name because I do not need a house, at the time I was 48 and Stephanie was a little younger but she does have some medical problems, but I would just as soon the house was in her name, was on our agreement. She used to get life insurance policy on me for $100,000, but I did say that I would put her on my medical at work, so that we could help pay some of the medical bills because I was kind of worried that if maybe somebody killed me or if I died of food poisoning that Stephanie would get rich real quick. 

 So, according to the statement signed by the mother saying that Stephanie said at the date on Nov. 2, I did not pick up Stephanie and take her to Post Falls. We did not go out to dinner. I worked that day. I reported into work at 2:45 pm, I think on the, Nov. 2, and I ordered a pizza at 1:51 PM on Nov. 2, so I could eat the pizza before I went to work. Me and Stephanie got together around 12 noon. We picked up her mother, who said she could not go out because the original to her was at 8:21 AM in the morning, is when I called her and they said she was not ready to go out and that I couldn’t take her out until after her father went to work at Home Depot and he left the house at noon and the mother left the house she said at around 11:00. So we drove up to ‘um, I think it was Oldman Lake. We sat there and watched somebody launch a boat. We got a wedding ring catalog from her house that she gave me and she showed me the furniture. We went upstairs only. Looked at the bed. She showed me a Karaoke machine, all of her clothes and a bed that came out of the basement, but the couch in the main living room so would know how much space to have to move all her stuff into my house. The mother actually called Stephanie on the cell phone two times during the day and one time I think she talked to her for over 6 minutes and that was between 12 and 1:00. I do not have Stephanie’s cell phone records, but Stephanie’s phone number that I was calling was 989-2706. Her mother’s cell phone number is 989-2707 and supposedly the other brother’s number was 989-2708. I had permission to see Stephanie and we knew that we were going out. Her mother said she did not like the fact that I had visited Stephanie at the house. The next time I went out with Stephanie after she got out of the hospital that I could call her, that we would go out, they drop her off at the Spokane Valley Mall and I could pick her up from there. And Stephanie said, “do I have your permission to date Randles? And they said ‘yes you do.’ Then the phone number was changed and they would no longer let me talk to her anymore. They had actually switched the number and gave the cell phone 989-2708 to her brother. But that is not what they told her. They actually promised her that I could see her. They said that I was considered maybe too old, but I was 48; Steve is 44 or 45; I don’t see what the difference is. She asked me my bank name. Wanted to know what banks I was at; I didn’t give her the numbers but she wanted to know what banks I banked at and she wanted to know why I changed my name from Randles P. Tompkins; I used to be Randles Craig Nutter, she asked me that, and we probably talked, with Stephanie the mom and me there on the phone for probably 10-15 minutes at the hospital. Everything was supposed to be OK. When I went to the hospital, to got Stephanie a card, I had Stephanie’s permission. Stephanie asked me to come to the hospital. I had tape recordings of all these conversations that she had left on my phone. I did not surprise her. 

 208-999-2706  11/04/2005  10:28 AM

Hi sweetheart, it’s just me again.  I just wanted to tell you that you are the best friend that I have ever known.  I don’t want to lose you for nothing.  I just want to be with you for the rest of my life.  I love you.  I hope to hear from you again some time but I will have to call you because my folks don’t want me talking to you often, so I’ll call you when they are not around.  Love you honey. Bye.

208-999-2706  11/04/2005 3:07 PM

Hi, this is Steph, I was just calling to say hi and to see how your day is going for you. Sure miss you hon, love you. Can’t wait to see you again.  Uhm Steve is coming by today because my Mom invited him to, oh boy, if you can get here before 3:45 that would be cool. Uhm, but my folks are going to be back probably in an hour so if you can get back before, before that it would be better.  Well anyways, give me a call.  Love you hon.  Bye

208-999-2706  11/05/2005 2:24 PM

Hey sweetheart, it’s almost 2:30.  I was just calling to say hi and tell you I sure love you and miss you.  Love you deeply with all of my heart.  I hope we never part.  I wish I could live with you some day and be your wife and be yours forever and ever.  Uhm, please call me at 989-2706 when you get this message. Can’t wait to hear from you hon,   love ya.  Bye.

 When I called, outside the room because they did not want me to see her, supposedly. The brother answered the cell phone outside the hospital in room 847, and I talked to them at----the hospital call was on Nov. 5, at 10:48 PM and I walked in the room and gave Stephanie the card and her brother said, “your too old for my sister,” and to leave the room; that was the only time I had seen the brother. Stephanie said I could hear him talking in the hall, have him come in the room, I came and gave her the card and he didn’t …..I had never seen Stephanie on the other date; the other date, I have a thing here …..I have a friend that I go see on the weekends once-in-a while and I was actually at a house on Nov. 19, to the 20th, took the person to work and I checked into the 24 Hour Fitness Health Club.  I have a print out of the time that I went to the health club. I was not at the hospital, as the statement said at 6:00 AM in the morning, waking anybody up. I did not do that. I did not know she was in the hospital that time. The first time I knew she was in the hospital she was in room 847. The second time I knew she was in the hospital after talking to Steve on Super Bowl night; we called him up, and talked. He talked to Debbie, which was a friend of mine that asked if Stephanie was there and they said no. I later found out that she was in the hospital that night, but I did not rush up there to see her. I went to the hospital the next day and brought her a Valentine’s Day card. When I went into Stephanie’s room she was sleeping. I said, “Hi Stephanie.” She woke up. I said this is Randles. She said, “how did you find that I was up here?”

 I said well I talked with Steve and she said ‘um, thank you for coming. I gave her a Valentine’s Day card; it was semi-dark; the door was open; the room  that I went to was 420; but the door open which was right across from the nurses station; you could actually see three nurses the entire time I was talking to her. I then read the card to her. She gave me the new phone number herself. I did not touch her cell phone, which is another false statement in the affidavit that the mother signed saying is correct. She gave me the number 928-2708. She then got out of her bed, took the card; hid it in her purse because she did not want the mother to find it. She got back into bed. She showed me her scar, told me about the operation. She said that she had had her stomach cut open; as we had talked about before she had her colon removed, is what she told me and she was having to see me. She kissed me 3 times. I did not force a kiss on her. She hugged me…..I kissed her; I kissed her a couple more times she said, “Steve was coming up around, I was in the room from 4:10 to 4:21. There should be some phone records because Steve showed up around 4:30 raising all kinds of hell; Steve Lefler. He called Dave Germain at phone number 324-0295 and then Dave Germaine called me and said that Steve was very, very upset, on that day and I went over to Dave’s house about 6 PM in the evening and talked to Dave on supposedly this incident. I did not attack Stephanie. She asked me for a piece of peppermint, because I had peppermint-----she said I was a very nice kisser and she could taste the peppermint in my mouth, so I gave her a piece of candy and we visited for a while and she was very mad that Steve had been lying to her because I had known that she had gone to the Garland Theater and she had done some stuff with Steve and Mary Moon and Pete. She was dating supposedly going out and things like that, so he was like…..Steve said he had never talked with me which is not true;

I have actually talked to Steve a few times during that time.  So, Stephanie told me that she would call me as soon as her mother and Steve left the hospital room, when she was in the hospital room at 4:30 pm, I can see her later in the evening. She said that she would call me as soon as Steve and her mother left and when she didn’t call me, I then went down to the Sheriff’s Dept. on; I went down to the Sheriff’s Dept. on Feb. 13, filing report, looking for a missing persons or what I could do because she said she was going to call me, which I thought was quite strange, like I said they had been trying to hide her. There is a lot of stuff going on here that is not right. The statements that the mother signed about the hospital visit; you can check the cell phone records which Stephanie when she actually called me. I have tape recordings of her calling me. She did not see a gun. I never showed her a gun. When I picked her up on Nov. 2, it was less than two hours because I had ordered a pizza; and picked that up on my way to work and the mother actually talked to the daughter two times during the actual date time. I would say the date was considered like maybe heavy petting. We kissed and cuddled and it was a nice sunny day and we had a nice time, you can ask Stephanie. About not knowing her and the different dates and all the times here on this time first time meeting. I am the one that drove the van to the restaurant. I contacted APS. 

  208-999-2706 11/03/2005 11:49 PM

Hey Randle, this is Steph. I just called to tell you that I still care for you and everything.  I sure hope it can work out between us but my Mom is starting to cause a lot of problems since she found out about us.  She knows we’ve had sex. Oh God, help me.  I sure hope it can work out between us because I will always love you. Well anyways, I’ll try to do what you asked me, like what you asked me to do earlier.  Would you still like to do that for me? Well anyways, have a good day.  Love you .  Bye

 208-999-2706  11/04/2005 10:25 AM

Hi sweetheart, I’m just calling to tell you that I will always love you no matter what happens and I hope you never forget that.  I will always love you.  Bye

 208-999-2706  11/04/2005  10:28 AM

Hi sweetheart, it’s just me again.  I just wanted to tell you that you are the best friend that I have ever known.  I don’t want to lose you for nothing.  I just want to be with you for the rest of my life.  I love you.  I hope to hear from you again some time but I will have to call you because my folks don’t want me talking to you often, so I’ll call you when they are not around.  Love you honey. Bye.

 According to the mother, APS said that they had learned from them that we had had unprotected sex. When I went to APS to file the paperwork they told me that it was going to be considered confidential and that nobody would know about it; it was supposed to be a private report, in good faith, because I am a mandatory provider and that I would have no problems, so how would the mother-----this is in the statement too from the mother, that APS actually violated their; it was supposed to be secret. The other time I went to APS was Feb. 13, 06. The number for that case they said is 73600. This is a little bit disjointed, the writing on this tape. I have trouble trying to put everything together in words.

 I am the special education student from Spokane, my original name is Randles Craig Nutter. I went to Garfield grade school. I went to Havermale and I went to Continuation High School. I only went two years and I got 16 credits in high school. I have paperwork from the school stating that I was in special education the entire time. I have problems with relationships; it says here age 14; reading level was considered third and fourth grade; average range 3.9; arithmetic level is sixth or seventh grade; average 6.1; language skills grade level 4-5; spelling skills grades 3-4; range 3.3 was is the average and verbal writing skills grade levels 3. The only problem was I was 14 years old. My dad had died; me and Stephanie talked quite a bit. I told her about my past. We were both special ed; we both had dead parents; we have a lot in common. I told her that I would take care of her; I told her that she’d never have to worry about heat, because Steve was freezing her out and there was no reason why she could not move in with me because she moved in with Steve; as far as I knew. And I told her she would never be cold. I like bike riding, I like canoeing, go to the lake, go swimming. She bought a fishing license, but her mother would not let me take her fishing. She ended up walking one time to the lake herself to go fishing, and Steve would never take her and the mother would not let her go on a train ride, that’s why I promised her when we got married that we could for on a train ride together.  The only thing I wanted to do was to have Stephanie learn how to ride the bus because they cannot let her out of the house. We were going to park at Northtown with the car. I was going to hand the money to Stephanie. We were going to carry the bread and then she would actually pay the bus driver. We would transfer downtown she’d ask for them and then we would then go up to Manito Park and feed the ducks and then ride back downtown, transfer back to the other direction and then we were go to the movie or have dinner at the ‘um at the movie theater there at Northtown. Her mother absolutely forbids her to go to movies at Northtown, ride the bus. She won’t let her ride the train, she can’t go swimming, she’s scared of everything…..ya know but I was going to be somebody with her, so it’s not like she’s gonna be by herself. There’s a lot of things she can do. She is highly functioning. I have never had any problems with her. She has never had the problems that they say she had; out in public. The only time I find out that she’s sick is when she goes home; her mother finds out and causes a lot of problems. 

 208-999-2706  11/08/2005 1:22 PM

I truly believe within my heart that my Mom was the one that put me in the hospital from all of the stress of not being able to see you or be with you.  That is why I had all of those seizures and headaches and pain and everything.  Please, please remember that I will always love you and care for you, with all of my heart.  I’ll talk to you later Randle.

 So, I told her that I would help her based on the reports she gave me. That I would bend over backwards to take care of her. So, I told her because of the bills to pay for the courts, and the lawyers and this that I would have to stay in my trailer for awhile and she said that that would be fine. She asked me, please help me; get me out of the house; she said her mother is the one that put her in the hospital. She mentions mother holding back pills at times, she’s told me a whole bunch of stuff that I think is wrong; plus the stuff that the brother has done by taking her to the neighbor to have sex and I said that she would not have to put up with this any more and that she loves me with all her heart deeply and never forget it.

208-99-2706  11/03/2005 11:49 PM

Hey Randle, this is Steph. I just called to tell you that I still care for you and everything.  I sure hope it can work out between us but my Mom is starting to cause a lot of problems since she found out about us.  She knows we’ve had sex. Oh God, help me.  I sure hope it can work out between us because I will always love you. Well anyways, I’ll try to do what you asked me, like what you asked me to do earlier.  Would you still like to do that for me? Well anyways, have a good day.  Love you .  Bye

208-999-2706  11/05/2005 2:24 PM

Hey sweetheart, it’s almost 2:30.  I was just calling to say hi and tell you I sure love you and miss you.  Love you deeply with all of my heart.  I hope we never part.  I wish I could live with you some day and be your wife and be yours forever and ever.  Uhm, please call me at 999-2706 when you get this message. Can’t wait to hear from you hon,   love ya.  Bye.

 So, the reason I went to help was to get her out of this situation. It was against the law to not give her mail and it was against the law for the mother to try to steal real estate from people using her daughter which she knows her daughter cannot go out and be married.  There is just a lot of stuff going on here and the entire testimony you heard and her son is perjury. The stuff that they said is not true. Because I was at work. They said here on the paperwork that I brought her home at 4:00 in the afternoon. She was having problems. Something about ya know we did some heavy petting but we did not have bad sex. I did not come. I did not try to come. I told her it would not be safe. We talked about adoption because I said until I talk to your doctor I do not know if you can have children safely with having seizures. So we need to talk to your doctor before we do any of that kind of stuff; sexually. I brought her a card at the hospital; gave it to her when her brother was there and the second card I gave to her with a heart shaped pin that had my name said it had ‘um Stephanie Tompkins on it and my phone number; love you forever and it was a valentine shaped heart which was given to her back in Nov., so she could always call me with a pink bow thing on it. She wore it around her neck. Her mother has taken that away from her. I had a name tag engraved with keys so that she had a place here at my house with her own name so she could get back home. This was shown to the police officer at the station downtown sheriff’s dept. and he told me to make a timeline of this information. So that they could then verify it because now that he has learned out about all this stuff he realizes it may be the parents actually perjured the entire testimony. I would like Stephanie E. DOE to appear in court herself; not a third party report. After listening to these tapes I need all the phone records from all Stephanie’s calls from Nov. to me, part of Oct., to show that she called me. Phone records from her mother. I’d like to see actual documentation of everything that the mother said about morning after pills and the stuff that she perjured herself on like she said Stephanie called her brothers and stuff because Steve was in the room with him 15 min. after I left and Dave Germaine can verify that he had called him. The mother was raising all kinds of  problems. I do not believe any of the testimony on the mothers perjured reports. 

 This is Randles P. Tompkins. This is a true statement and story of exactly of what happened. I have not lied on this tape and everything is as exactly as happened.   Stephanie and me would like to see each other again. It is not a one sided relationship as somebody is trying to say. Please let Stephanie talk for herself because I can prove that of all the other stuff here in writing that everything on these timelines that the mother provided is false. 

 I would also like to look at all past lawsuits for Stephanie because Stephanie told me she’s had sex with another man before us where the mother actually received furniture and stuff that they bought with the money, because she is not allowed to have so much money in the house, so I think there is other people besides us that had been duped out of money by going out with Stephanie in the past. Please help her. 

 This is Randles P. Tompkins.  509-701-5683.  P.O. Box 18010, Spokane, WA  99228

 Thank you. + This is the end of the tape. 

 The undersigned, Vice President of Spokane International Translation, a language translation agency, does hereby certify that this is a true and correct transcription of a cassette recording. 
Marta C. Reyes + Perciba, Incorporated + 502 East 3 rd Ave. Spokane, Wa. 99202 
    + 509-327-8064 or 1-877-737-2422 + ( 
www.perciba.com ) + MARCH 27 2006 +

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS WEBSITE + I HOPE THAT THIS WEB SITE CAN HELP YOU & OTHER PERSONS WITH COURT CASE'S IN U.S.A. Etc. Also You Can E-Mail at yourcivilrights@yahoo.com You Can Also Write To Me At Rommel P. Westlaw @ P.O. Box 18010 Spokane, Washington. 99228-0010 U.S.A. My Phone Message # 509-701-5683 Or You Call Me At Work From 6am to 10pm PST & Call At My New (Washington D.C. Offices) At 202-670-LAWS (5297) + HELP OTHER By Making A Small Donation Or Help With Your Time Etc ! + Thank You ! PLEASE REMEMBER ! DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS Get Help !

Thank You For Visiting My Civil Rights & Court Websites & Law School Helper & Info.Etc.


Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities:
This site does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety or merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained in This site nor in any way endorse the individuals or institutions listed in This site. This site does not validate, inspect, credential, or ensure the competence of any of the providers listed or the content provided. Due diligence on the part of the consumer is required prior to contacting any providers. In no event shall this site be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken by you in reliance on such information. Any damages for any reason shall be limited to the Amount Paid to Access And This Web Site Is Free For All To See and Use. The above warranties are the only warranties of any kind either expressed or implied including warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. The user hereby indemnifies This site fully for all actions and agrees that This site is not to be held responsible for any adverse consequences to you. Or to you in person and or to you in courts or to you and any 3rd party persons or people you help with this website.

Disclaimer: + This is A Disclaimer from the Owner of this Website + Please Read ! + Nothing Here Is To Be Construed As "Legal Advice". We Are Not lawyers, And We Are Not Pretending To Be lawyers. This manual and website and information is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone who is seeking any legal advice should consult a competent professional. Neither the author, editor or publisher or anyone guarantee that using Any of this information will result in success or protect the reader from harm. The reader must accept that risk, and thoroughly study the law before using any of this material. Readers must take full responsibility for the consequences of any actions taken based on the contents of this website manual & Information Pics hear.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on this website is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Read all about Copyright & Fair Use at- http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

If you are a copyright holder who is unhappy about our promotion of your work to help others for Free ! + Please (Let Us Know) and we will happily remove it from the website if i can do so.

If you have a complaint about Westlaw Books Dot Com Content of this site, how about telling the webmaster first? You can Contact the Webmaster In Writing At P. O. Box 1144 Bonners Ferry, ID. 83805-1144 U.S.A.

Everything Written by Prof. Rommel P. Westlaw or Randles P. Tompkins or Randall C. Nutter Carries No Copyrights. Nothing I Do is for Money or "Fame". Feel free to copy, reuse, republish what I write. I don't care about attribution or credit. I Care Only About Not Shutting Westlaw Books Down and Putting As Many Bad Police Officers & Dishonorable Judges & There Agents in Prison As Possible and Per All U.S. Laws for Treason & for Violating the United States Constitution! Please Remember ! Do Not Take The Law Into Your Own Hands (Get Help) !


Our Website & logos are copyrighted to limit their use to honorable purposes. We specifically Prohibit Our Website to be associated with supremacist, sexist, or "hate" groups or purposes.

Westlaw Books Friends and allies may freely use and distribute Westlaw Books produced artwork, posters, brochures, articles, or other educational materials available on any of the websites owned by Westlaw Books P. O. Box 1144 Bonners Ferry, ID. 83805-1144 U.S.A..


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on this website is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Read all about Copyright & Fair Use at- http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
We Encourage you to go to the original sources to read the Whole Story
Read all about Copyright & Fair Use at-
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

This website is dedicated to helping people who are still serving long prison sentences received during the "ritual abuse" panic of the late eighties and early nineties. During this time, scores of innocent people were accused by overzealous social workers and police of heinous crimes against children.

In time, the hysteria subsided and most people were freed from prison (although many had spent years in prison and had been bankrupted by the process). It was discovered that the young children had been virtually brainwashed by the leading questions and repeated interrogations of social workers, therapists and law enforcement officials. Therefore, their wild testimony about animal sacrifice, devil worship, traveling in submarines, secret tunnels, and flying to secret locations where they were molested were fabrications, mostly without a shred of truth.

But incredibly, some people still remain in prison, forgotten and powerless.
"I didn't like to think about what that could do to the soul of a human being, to have to sit in a prison cell day after day for a crime you had not committed. And nothing to look forward to at the end of a day but the knowledge of hundreds more days like the one you just endured."

Permission to reproduce this material in a electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder. Free permission to reprint the essay is granted to non-profit research and educational purposes only. and Free thought publications. All others must secure advance permission of the author through the Westlaw Books, which can be contacted at the address at the end of this file.

The following form is provided by Westlaw Books Etc., for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. Westlaw Books is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this form is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney All rights reserved by this website for anything not cover above.

We try very hard to make sure that the information on this page and links to information is accurate and up-to-date. This information is presented For Your Educational Purposes Only, and not actual Legal Advice, which you would expect to receive from a Real Lawyer who hates Dishonorable persons, peoples, & judges, And Bad Court of the Lands with every fiber of his being, spends the time necessary to become familiar with your case, supplies Competent Counsel, and knows how to present a Vigorous and Effective Defense against dishonorable persons, peoples, & judges, Etc. insane wild allegations and Character Assassinations, and does not try to talk you into a Plea Bargain when you are innocent and if you are innocent stand your ground.

Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or of having to accept counsel beholden to one's adversary." Burgett v. Texas, 389 US 109 see all court cases.

We supply All information for free. No Westlaw Books & Advocate under the westlawbooks.com Umbrella charges you for their help. You may feel free to help your advocate financially, but you are not required to do so.

Some of Westlaw Books member advocates may have 501 (c)(3) Non-profit Tax Free status many of our advocates do not, and must not represent that donations to them are to be. "Tax Free".

Westlaw Books Dot Com Does Not have a 501(c)(3) Status and will not have in the furture at all.

We don't want one because we refuse to have our self help and political activities hand-cuffed:

IRS Charities & Non-Profits Page "An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities."

Our #1 goal and intention is to connect families with current information and news. we promote many copyrighted works, and try very hard not to infringe a-pond anyone law-full copyrights.

We Want people to read the original sources In Context, so they know we aren't "making it up".

Mission Statement

Westlaw Books and association is a first amendment rights association speaking on matters of Public Concern of parents, grandparents, family rights advocates, former foster and adopted children, attorneys, law school student, licensed social workers, medical professionals, human rights and freedom advocates.

The insertion of the coercive force of government into the private lives of families, without accountability, due process, or recourse to redress the government for grievances is epidemic nationally and invariably harms families, communities, threatens our country's future and should be vigorously opposed.

We are dedicated to assisting families and their children by providing access to educational materials, news, support and information which will allow families and individuals to educate themselves on subjects of vital importance in restoring, exercising, and defending their rights and liberties. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed.


Permission to quote statements we make and use our graphics is hereby granted without obtaining permission. We do Not copyright our quotes or graphics we create, which we Want to be widely dissembled to further the cause of Liberty and Justice for your Families and For All Families. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed. Thank you !

Our Website & logos are copyrighted to limit their use to Honorable Purposes. We specifically prohibit our logos to be associated with supremacist, sexist, or Any "hate" groups or purposes.

Educate the public to be aware of the methods and operation of the unconstitutional insertion of government power into the family, the unconstitutional conduct of the courts in these cases;

Bring our grievances before the officials whose job is supposed to be to Fix It Our The Systems!

Promote legislation to protect the freedom of parents and children in their families
activities promotes both Advocacy and Activism Whether one is attracted to advocacy or activism is highly related to one's personality type. Both are highly important to the freedom of parents/ children.

Westlaw Books and Association stands true to it's founding principles and the U.S. Constitution.

Another worthy contribution on the part of Westlaw Books is We give people Help and Hope, and a method to blow off steam through our Numerous Forums when faced with these unaccountable and immune judges and state DSHS / CPS workers and are constantly denied redress of grievances by the unconstitutional and corrupt civil and family courts in U.S.A..

We have been providing the Safety Valve that is supposed to be the job of impartial Courts of Constitutional Due Process.

Public officials, ignorant of the law or paralyzed by suspicion, regularly thwart citizens exercising their constitutional right to inspect public records, a statewide audit has found. This is a Huge research project definitely worth spending some time going over. People are being denied their records all across the nation, primarily because it is the proof they are being falsely prosecuted.